In a thread below deed confusion is brought about in part because an "Easement" is described and given a tract number.
"Tract" or "Parcel" should only describe land convyed, or excepted or reserved from the conveyance.
An "Easement" is an easement and should never be referred to as a tract or parcel. An easement may be on or against a portion of a tract or parcel for the benefit of a different tract or parcel.
Paul in PA
In a perfect world...yes. The problem is the legal professionals who actually compose the filed instrument are free to butcher our descriptions.
In NY we provide a narrative description (metes and bounds), the attorneys are free to screw it up after that.
A recent narrative was provided to a closing attorney as a word doc. All they had to do was copy and paste. They still managed to file it with a quadrant switched.
Rick
> In a thread below deed confusion is brought about in part because an "Easement" is described and given a tract number.
>
> "Tract" or "Parcel" should only describe land convyed, or excepted or reserved from the conveyance.
>
> An "Easement" is an easement and should never be referred to as a tract or parcel. An easement may be on or against a portion of a tract or parcel for the benefit of a different tract or parcel.
I can't say I agree with that. An easement is a right of use, the land that is subject to the easement is a tract or parcel. So, to describe an easement that has a distinct location, one necessarily has to describe a tract or a parcel. Where the deed is prepared by an attorney (as is typical in Texas) the easement estate to be conveyed should be described elsewhere in the conveyance, using language for which the attorney who drafts the instrument can take responsibility.
We have to be careful how we use these terms in Iowa. "Tract" and "Parcel" are defined in the Iowa Code.
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 354 PLATTING == DIVISION AND SUBDIVISION OF LAND
354.2 DEFINITIONS.
As used by this chapter, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
2. "Aliquot part" means a fractional part of a section within the United States public land survey system. Only the fractional parts one-half, one-quarter, one-half of one- quarter, or one-quarter of one-quarter shall be considered an aliquot part of a section.
6. "Division" means dividing a tract or parcel of land into two parcels of land by conveyance or for tax purposes. The conveyance of an easement, other than a public highway easement, shall not be considered a division for the purpose of this chapter.
7. "Forty-acre aliquot part" means one-quarter of one-quarter of a section.
13. "Parcel" means a part of a tract of land.
20. "Tract" means an aliquot part of a section, a lot within an official plat, or a government lot.
An "Easement" is an easement and should never be referred to as a tract or parcel. An easement may be on or against a portion of a tract or parcel for the benefit of a different tract or parcel.
I agree. We would say an easement "affects" a parcel or lot, "in favor of" a parcel or lot (or entity, like a power or phone company). In our case, "parcel" generally refers to a tax map parcel that doesn't already have a distinct lot number.
As in so many of these legal questions ...
it depends. And it especially depends on where your basis of knowledge is from. While there are some general legal guidelines, there are so many nuances from state to state that any broad, sweeping statements that are made are going to have the contrary found in some other part of the country.
I know that one that really bugs me is the typical statement that you can't create an easement over yourself. And yet we do that in Virginia all the time. For whatever reason, a person may want to cut a lot out of a larger tract of land without any road frontage. So he creates an easement over his larger parcel of land to serve the new lot. In Virginia we think of easements as serving a parcel and going over another parcel - regardless of who owns either or both of the parcels in question.
Legal Semantics
> I know that one that really bugs me is the typical statement that you can't create an easement over yourself. And yet we do that in Virginia all the time. For whatever reason, a person may want to cut a lot out of a larger tract of land without any road frontage. So he creates an easement over his larger parcel of land to serve the new lot.
I'd be willing to bet that, irregardless of the language used on the deed or on the plat describing the easement, the courts would consider the above example a "reservation" of an easement and if or when the larger parcel is conveyed and a dominant/subservient tenancy relationship between the parcels is established, that is the moment the easement is "created".
But I have been wrong before, my wife can vouch for that 😉
Legal Semantics (and grammar)
regardless = without regard
irregardless = not without regard... or also = regarding
Legal Semantics (and grammar)
Merriam-Webster dictionary says:
"'Irregardless' originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use 'regardless' instead." [emphasis mine]
"Irrespective" is another good (and correct) alternative.
Legal Semantics (and grammar)
> regardless = without regard
>
> irregardless = not without regard... or also = regarding
Sure, if you want to get all "schoolmarmish" on me.
However, there is a rapidly disappearing tradition in formal English of using the redundant negative as a means to express a point (unboundless, undauntless, uneffectless, unfathomless, etc).
And while parochial word Nazis like the those at the American Heritage Dictionary may frown on "irregardless"; the Oxford English Dictionary considers it to be an "American dialectical" usage.
Since formal language tends to evolve from dialect; the use if "irregardless" signifies that the user is concurrently a traditionalist and ahead of his time.
Legal Semantics (and grammar)
> Since formal language tends to evolve from dialect; the use if "irregardless" signifies that the user is concurrently a traditionalist and ahead of his time.
LOL! Ten points extra credit.
Legal Semantics (and grammar)
I always use "disirregardless"........
> We have to be careful how we use these terms in Iowa. "Tract" and "Parcel" are defined in the Iowa Code.
> 13. "Parcel" means a part of a tract of land.
>
> 20. "Tract" means an aliquot part of a section, a lot within an official plat, or a government lot.
Ditto in MI, although significantly diff definitions:
(g) “Parcel” means a continuous area or acreage of land which can be described as provided for in this act.
(h) “Tract” means 2 or more parcels that share a common property line and are under the same ownership.
rick- I tend to agree- it seems the language in the deed could have been prepared better, refering to my post "what am I missing".
simply reading the deed, Grantor "GRANTED, CONVEYED, SOLD ALL OF TRACT ONE AND TRACT TWO", although Tract Two was described as an easement
Paul,
my simple mind was confused on the construction of the deed in my original post"what am I Missing?".
"legal counsel" determined that the Grantor retained Tract Two, the easement to the 10.10 acre tract.
