Did not want to sidetrack the discussion on the "it Finally Happened" thread.?ÿ The comment about the assessor being an elected official brought to mind my current little problem.
The survey project is in a county with comparatively strict zoning rules at this time.?ÿ The Register of Deeds is a relative terror, thinking she can tell surveyors how to draft their plats or refuse to record them.?ÿ If someone tries to record a deed using the description from the yet unrecorded survey she refuses to record it until she approves a plat for recording.?ÿ Meanwhile, the County Attorney is the zoning officer, flood plain manager and sanitarian.?ÿ A tough place to make things happen unless they both are happy.
The client sent me his deed from his purchase last Summer of a metes and bounds tract that is barely outside the city limits of a small town.?ÿ It should abut two additions created in 1903 and 1906.?ÿ It was apparent the description on the deed had not been prepared by a land surveyor and that it did not match the description of the parent tract whatsoever.?ÿ The client was not sure how the description was prepared.?ÿ The one thing he was certain on was that the seller intended to keep a strip of the parent tract off the end side.
The description comes fairly close to getting the east line of the new parcel where they intended but it leaves a gap varying between 60 and 80 feet along the north side where it should have been abutting the two old additions.
After researching very carefully, I went to the office of the title company that had been involved and held the closing on the transaction.?ÿ Learned the owner of the real estate brokerage involved in the sale had drafted the description.?ÿ Everyone else assumed he had done it correctly.?ÿ Besides, he was serving as one of the three members of the County Commission and no one was going to go against him.?ÿ He has been in the real estate business for nearly 50 years, going back to the days when many descriptions were prepared by the agents.?ÿ Can't teach that old dog any new tricks, such as the statute that forbids such activity.?ÿ Even the stickler Register of Deeds had let him get away with the description.?ÿ Now everyone is learning how badly he botched the job.?ÿ He could have probably gotten away with it if he had merely cited the wording of the parent deed and then simply added, "less the east 135 feet thereof".?ÿ That was the intent----sell everything to my client except the part directly to the south of an existing second tract owned by the seller that was 135 feet wide.
Maybe I'll toss my hat into the ring next time we need to elect a county commissioner in my county.?ÿ What power?!?!
"?ÿthe seller intended to keep a strip of the parent tract off the end side"
What a doofus!?ÿ What the heck is an end side??ÿ It should have said "east side"
Local government, don??t you love it?
The "good 'ol boy" syndrome, It's alive and well throughout Florida. ?????ÿ
I ran into a messed up deed once in the form of a "Sheriff's Deed".?ÿ In Oklahoma if you own property that gets auctioned for non-payment of taxes the new buyer is issued a Sheriff's Deed.?ÿ In this one case at least the description on the new deed was apparently prepared by someone in the assessor's office...with an IQ of probably less than 30.
The property described a 40 ac. tract with 37.5 ac. of the area removed by a "less and except" in the description and the owner of the 2.5 acres had died intestate.?ÿ While the owner of the remaining 37.5 acres had some vague distant family ties with the decedent, they did not know him or have any business with him.?ÿ The properties had been severed from each other in the 1930's.?ÿ
When the assessor's office prepared a description for the subject property they failed to include the less and except wording and merely described the property as "the SW/4 of the SW/4" being the entire original 40 acres.?ÿ The property sold at auction and the out-of-state buyer contacted me to survey the "property".?ÿ I ran into the owner of the remaining 37.5 acres on site.?ÿ Needless to say they were 'surprised' their property (with improvements) had been auctioned and a deed filed by the court clerk.
While one might think that conversations with a few key people could rectify the situation, remember they were dealing with a small county and their backwoods mentality.?ÿ It took almost a year and some attorney fees to get it cleaned up.?ÿ All because someone at the assessor's office attempted to be "brief" on a letter-size county form.?ÿ ?ÿ
The commissioners went through a period of writing Quit Claim deeds when they vacated roads. Maybe it would have been OK if they would have simply Quit Claimed reversionary rights to each land owner, but no they described them as metes. Sometimes "granting" one land owner the entire street when they didn't get it. One set was a series of quit claims they did for an 1892 vacation,,,,,,,,, they did those in the 1990's.
All, I think, cause of one title company wanting a "record" of ownership......
Lawyers gotta lawyer.?ÿ
The commissioners went through a period of writing Quit Claim deeds when they vacated roads. Maybe it would have been OK if they would have simply Quit Claimed reversionary rights to each land owner, but no they described them as metes. Sometimes "granting" one land owner the entire street when they didn't get it.
So it adds confusion, but shouldn't be a problem, as they can't actually grant what they didn't own. I could give you a quit claim for the same land and it would have no effect.
I would agree, except it has cost a number of landowners money to clean up their title. One family spent over $8000, in my view unnecessarily, to satisfy the powers that be concerning the 1892 vacation. My opinion was they didn't need to spend a penny.
Putting a deed on record can cloud title and maybe even could be considered slander of title, although I'm no attorney.
