I'm having an issue with a title company about a document and an ALTA survey. The short story is land was granted from the Indians to a private party before statehood and that deed included property below in the river. However, it was never recorded then Idaho became a state, thus removing the Indian rights to the property below the ordinary high water. This issue is not part of the dispute. The issue i am having is that in the final exhibit - 2, the one that defines the property quieted to the private party starts with Lot 1....more particularly described as follows...it then proceeds to include property outside of lot 1, (the property below the ordinary high water). In my eyes that parcel is still limited to Lot 1 per the plat. I proposed and actually did provide a rewritten legal described as Lot 1 together with....and then proceeded to describe the area outside of Lot 1, the area that this entire case was about.
The title company says they see the new description in Exhibit 2 of the quiet title as the redefined Lot 1. I said, if that was the intent then it should of included a together with statement and not the more particularly described as follows statement.
I want to be correct in my stance and i think I am but am very open to another perspective on this.
I'm leaning with the title company on this one. The quiet title description (Exhibit 2) defines the limit of title. It refers to the plan and Lot 1 as an aid to understanding the boundary described in the judgement. I think you should view this not as a description for a conveyance, but as a decree by a judge - not to be modified by a mere surveyor, no matter how poorly worded.
Good point Peter, but it IS being used as the description for conveyance...currently.
Lot 1 is not limited to Government Lot 8 either. It appears to be in 7 and 8.
Great catch Roy! You are correct. What's your take on the matter?
"...that part of property of the heirs of the Margaret Post Estate lying within the Town of Post Falls, which has not heretofore been platted,"
"being also the West line of William Street of the Town of Post Falls extended South 548.7 feet to the North bank of the Spokane River"
So, shouldn't the plat boundary lines be construed as depicting meander lines, where as the true boundary lines run to the OHWM at the time/date of the original map/plat/survey?
And now the complete legal description can be fully developed because the OHWM (or whatever they are using) is known. Hence, the Exhibit 2 (Tract 1) description now includes an area in excess of and adjacent to that area shown as Lot 1 on the Map.
I would lean toward: "All those lands quieted to Templin Resort and Conference Center, Inc as described in Exhibit 2 Cause No 66937 recorded as Instrument No 1143422, amended by Inst No 1203869 records of Kootenai County as follows: (insert original description warts and all)."
it then proceeds to include property outside of lot 1, (the property below the ordinary high water).
I might be missing something but they stipulated in their agreement that 2124.0 was the OHW elevation and the exhibit 2 goes south to the bank to elevation 2124.0 and meanders along that elevation. So by my interpretation exhibit 2 does not include property outside of lot 1. It specifically does not go below the OHW.
You're not missing anything @lurker, as that is also my interpretation. Someone above pointed out the government lot issue as well. Lot 1 is also part of government Lot 7 but that was not referenced in the legal. I can almost let that one slide since they do reference the platted lot which is clearly in Govt Lots 7 and 8.
To be clear...
The boundary line(s) are run to the OHWM.
The datum, elevation, and method to calculate OHWM is what is stipulated to.
So as to be concise and repeatable.
Lot 1 extends to the OHW line if that's the statute in Idaho. So, there should be one description terminating along a meander line for the south line of Lot 1. Lot 1 resides in both Gov. Lot 7 and Gov. Lot 8 and the south line of lot 1 needs to be along a portion of the south line of Lot 8.
This was an interesting find and read:
https://www.idl.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/02/Disclaimer-of-interest-procedures.pdf
Section 10 - Navigable Waters Ownership.
Thanks @mulambda382 We have that reference handy. It's not an ownership issue, it's a legal description issue. That's how i see it, which i why i wanted to provide a correct and complete legal for the property acquisition.
I know it's not an ownership issue. That reference material was for the benefit of the discussion, since there appeared to be (and likely still is) some potential disagreement in the operation of surveying/law in the state of Idaho.
I guess I don't understand how (why) you see this as a "legal description issue" (for property acquisition)?
You said you were doing an ALTA survey, which is title (boundary), which is ownership, which is addressed fairly well in that reference material.
If the intent is to accurately describe Lot 1, then the description from Exhibit 2 appears to be the best available evidence of the true title lines (boundary) for said property based upon the basic principles of surveying and tenets of property law.
Identifying the "upland property" is fairly straightforward, and looks as if it has been properly established.
It would seem that the attorneys have all they need to draft the proper legal description for any conveyance documents because that language is available from the Exhibit(s).
Your original statements and premise do not fit the facts and circumstance: "...more particularly described as follows…it then proceeds to include property outside of lot 1, (the property below the ordinary high water)" and "the title company says they see the new description in Exhibit 2 of the quiet title as the redefined Lot 1. I said, if that was the intent then it should of included a together with statement and not the more particularly described as follows statement".
Not that it matters, but if it were me, I would heed the advice of that silver-tongued purveyor of wisdom, Peter-Lothian.
