I have two boundary surveys going on concurrently. They are separated by about 25 miles north south.
My clients are the buyers in both cases.
The north sale has my client buying a neighbor's land to the east, the neighbor's parcel is bounded by section lines on their east boundary.
The other has my client buying the neighbor's parcel to the south, that parcel is bounded by a E-W center section line on the south of the neighbor's land.?ÿ
In both cases a parcel of land has been extended by survey across the boundary line, in the first case a tract to the east extends 15' across the section line, the second survey has a subdivision extending up to 50 feet across the center of the section.?ÿ
In both cases it's my opinion to except these parcels out of the sale. So far the title people are on board. Does anyone run into to this often and how is it normally handled?
I'm confused. If your clients' boundaries are the section line why don't they own the property up to the section line? Or is it the other way around, they think they own parcels that are beyond the section line? If the second case, then excepting those portions beyond the section line makes sense.
@lurker?ÿ
At this point my clients don't own the parcel.
There is a property to the east of the section line. That description calls out the section line as the west boundary, but was surveyed across the section line, monumented and fenced. There is a 15' overlap. Instead of buying into an overlap I suggest that it gets excepted out.?ÿ
Twice again...............Stupid people do stupid things.
@holy-cow how are innocent lay people stupid?
Your comment is stupid.
We acquired a the SW1/4 of the NE1/4 of a Section with a fence on the south about 15 feet north of the east-west centerline of section.?ÿ If I could go back in a time machine I would recommend my employer except the strip between the fence and the centerline then the seller could dispose of it however he wanted, selling or gifting it to the vineyard owner to the south would make the most sense.
Because they believe they can handle things on their own without consulting experts, who might charge them some fee.?ÿ
Less than an hour ago I was contacted by a client from 1996 and 1999.?ÿ He is attempting to get his affairs in order as he and his wife are both 88 years young.?ÿ In 1999 or early 2000 he built a fence around his property, which is truly an island in the middle of more than 160 acres.?ÿ It was then that he realized that one side of the property fell along an old tree row.?ÿ He talked with the adjoiner about that.?ÿ They stood out there and agreed to move his property 25 feet to the west so the one side would no longer be in the tree row.?ÿ They have still taken no action to make that adjustment legally.?ÿ So, I am now explaining to him why he needs a new survey and several descriptions to set matters straight.?ÿ That is a period of 21 or 22 years with no corrective action taken by either party involved in the middle of pasture discussion.?ÿ Hopefully, we can get everything done before anyone dies.
In this specific case it is even a bit worse than normal because the adjoiner is actually a brother and sister (69 & 71) and their spouses.?ÿ The former client's children are in their 60's and live well over 1500 miles away from the parcels involved.
Hopefully, we can get everything done before anyone dies.
I just finished a job that had this pressure and have another one not yet started.
The deed for the parcel is a trust deed granted in 2021.
The parcel has been in the family for a long time and the trust deed is a rehash of the parcel from the 1950's or so.
The area in question is the E2SE4 and the trust deed excepts out a 3 acre parcel from the E2SE4 that was granted in the late 50's. However, there was a fee grant to DOT in the 60s and a recent Subdivision that took a slice from the north line of the 80 acres. So my suggestion is to rewrite the description with a metes and bounds excepting out the DOT parcel, the subdivision lot, the 3 acre tract and the sliver along the east line.
I probably didn't completely follow that description, but isn't this a "you can't sell what you don't own" problem? - possibly creating an attitude (as in legal attitude) adjustment to both the eastern and southern lands.
@dave-o?ÿ
Owned by description/deed, no conflict between the deeds, but there is no reason for my client to jump into that problem.?ÿ
More boundary and legal principles gold right here i tell ya!
?ÿ
Dammit i love this site!
