I'm working on a couple of adjacent ranch surveys in which a 70-foot overlap in descriptions on the 6-mile-long common boundary appears between the title reports issued by Regional Company (RC) and Great Big National Company (GBNC).?ÿ I brought this to the attention of the title officer at RC, hoping for a quick resolution.?ÿ He said that the report was compiled from reports that had been prepared by others decades earlier, and that he needs to run the chain back to a common grantor to get to the bottom of the problem.?ÿ He also said that he's so busy that he can't look into it for several weeks.?ÿ Instead, he invited me to run the chain myself at their plant.?ÿ Eager to get the matter taken care of, I agreed.
I don't like running title chains, because I find it awfully boring work.?ÿ Many's the time that I've sat before the county microfilm reader and struggled to keep my eyes open -- not a good thing when constant attention to detail is required.?ÿ However, I was interested to see how it's done in a title company plant, so on Monday I drove to the county seat and got a crash course in the plant record-keeping system.
I was expecting a hyper-organized system that would allow me to conduct automated searches for grantors and grantees, and deed copies that had been augmented as needed for legibility -- maybe even transcribed from the original cramped handwriting of some of the clerks from the pre-typewriter days.?ÿ What I found was not much better than the klunky old setup that the County Recorder has: a mix of microfilm, microfiche and paper books, all presenting copies of the originals with all their confounding legibility challenges.?ÿ
So it was still awfully boring work.?ÿ However, at least all the resources were close at hand, there was plenty of table space to spread out, and printing copies was fast and free (unlike at the county, where I would have spent a small fortune on copies).?ÿ I spent about 4 hours on Monday and another 3 hours on Wednesday, and found most of the deeds I need to demonstrate color of title in favor of Ranch X.?ÿ (It's complicated, though; the strip was originally sold in 1916, but parts of it were subsequently deeded out before Ranch X came into the picture.?ÿ Unfortunately, the description was never changed to reflect that.)?ÿ I compiled the chain and deed copies into a file that I sent to the title officer at GBNC for review and comment.?ÿ I'm hoping that both companies are going to revise their reports to reflect a common line, but my optimism isn't real high yet.
When the research is being done for boundary retracement I thought land surveyors were the Pros
I did a couple title chains as a student and I found it sort of interesting.?ÿ I could see how it would be boring if one did them all the time though, and I know I certainly wouldn't want to.
One memory that stuck with me is when I did one for my senior project.?ÿ I remember one of the local surveyors who came in to judge our work kind of rudely (as if I were wasting my time) and sarcastically asked if I enjoyed doing that kind of work.?ÿ The question didn't make a lot of sense to me because I was under the impression every surveyor did them from time to time.
Anyway, like I say interesting experience.
Is there any reason besides copying fees that you would prefer the title company's records vs. the registry of deeds? It seems to me that the better source would be the original depository. Here in Mass. the public records offices have had severe limits on access since the COVID-19 situation developed. I had an attorney contact me looking for our deed research on an old project because he could only get into the registry for 2 hours a day.
I find it interesting that a Title Co. still has a "Title Plant." All of the Title Companies here purchase their data from overseas companies. Three of them subscribe to a service from the same company in Malaysia. The local offices shut their plants down about 20 years ago. I find that they usually don't even review the Schedule B documents, which results in some crappy info. I reviewed one Commitment that contained references to 14 documents that were not pertinent to the insured parcel.
?ÿ
I've had very few clients who were willing to pay my rate to search a chain of title.
Reminds me of a very nice outcome researching the chain. Here all records are available on line including grantor/grantee searches as well as tract searches. You can do it all in your office.
Had a client with a 20 overlap/gap. I took it back to when the parcel was first created by a deed with an erroneous (by 20') tie in distance. Found the lawyer?ÿ that prepared that deed in 1968 and asked that he check to see if there was any help in his records to indicate a transposition error or something of the kind. The guy was still there! Better yet he prepared a correction deed and filed it and sent me copies. Problem solved.
You are right it was kind of boring and a bit expensive to look at all the deeds that didn't help, but it felt pretty good in the end.
Is there any reason besides copying fees that you would prefer the title company's records vs. the registry of deeds?
All the records in the public room at my local County Recorder's office are either on microfilm or served by a super-klunky digital screen application, which makes searching grantors and grantees very tedious and time-consuming.?ÿ Being able to run your finger down the columns of a page in a bound book makes that job go much faster -- still tedious, but not nearly as time-consuming.?ÿ And the county doesn't offer any table space on which one can spread out maps and documents; it's just a few carrels with microfilm readers or PCs.
That said, I was expecting a much more streamlined operation at the title company.?ÿ I was shocked when the title officer pulled a large (5-foot or so wide) rolled linen map out of a corner and opened it to show me something.?ÿ The map was from the early 20th century, and the print side was cracked and flaking.?ÿ I asked if they had gotten it digitized so that when it inevitably crumbled to dust they'd have a backup; he just laughed?ÿ and said "No."
P.S.?ÿ I misspoke earlier when I said that the ranch common boundary was 6 miles long -- it's closer to 3 miles.?ÿ Not that that changes the situation, but I wanted to correct the record.
You are right it was kind of boring and a bit expensive to look at all the deeds that didn't help, but it felt pretty good in the end.
That reminds me of a dangerous rabbit hole when doing title research:?ÿ constantly running across familiar local surnames in the grantor-grantee indices.?ÿ The temptation to pull deeds unrelated to the job just because you know the family or the property and want to know more about the history can be strong at times.
Deeper rabbit hole....seeing the quit claims between shady land companies with same named or swapped named LLC members of failed real estate transactions or contract for deed scams.....
Yeah researching is fun, required and often not done enough IMHO.
?ÿ
Yeah, I do remember there being kind of an odd peace of mind when doing the boundary retracement that I knew the complete history of the parcel.
I fully understand the desire to wander off down a rabbit trail on something you don't need but find interesting for some reason.
Our counties have the index books by section-township-range and the cities by additions and then block-lot.?ÿ Most sections are divided out into NW,SW,SE,NE quarters which helps tremendously.
One thing the title plants should have that we don't are court records tied to a specific tract.?ÿ With only the Register of Deeds records we find plenty of cases where the last recipient was Joe Blow and the next deed recorded is from Jack Frost to Petunia Pig.?ÿ How did it get from Blow to Frost??ÿ Court records.
