I am working on numerous properties in North Central Texas. I have Warranty Deed that
which in short, reads
"THAT I MR. SMITH(GRANTOR) ..., the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, have GRANTED, SOLD, AND CONVEYED unto MR. BROWN (GRANTEE) all of the following described property"..
"TRACT ONE: Being surface and Surface Estate only.." goes on to describe a 10.10 acre tract in the middle of MR. SMITH'S property.
"TRACT TWO: Being a non-exclusive Right of Way and easement, which is a 50 wide Right of Way and access easement for ingress and egress to and from TRACT ONE"...goes on to describe a 3.55 acre tract starting at a public road and running basically West(3,094') to TRACT ONE and runs along the entire north line of TRACT ONE.
At the end of the description of TRACT TWO, there was this language..
"GRANTOR reserves to himself, his heirs, and assigns all ingress and egress over, along and across the above 50 foot Right of Way easement"
Did Mr Smith GRANT,SELL, AND CONVEY both TRACTS? If he only sold TRACT ONE,
why would he reserve to himself access across the 50 Right of Way?
Maybe non-exclusive is the key word.
I have had "legal counsel" on this project tell me otherwise... maybe I need to keep studying Black's Law..:-)
> "THAT I MR. SMITH(GRANTOR) ..., the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, have GRANTED, SOLD, AND CONVEYED unto MR. BROWN (GRANTEE) all of the following described property"..
> [...]
> "TRACT TWO: Being a non-exclusive Right of Way and easement, which is a 50 wide Right of Way and access easement for ingress and egress to and from TRACT ONE"...goes on to describe a 3.55 acre tract starting at a public road and running basically West(3,094') to TRACT ONE and runs along the entire north line of TRACT ONE.
> Did Mr Smith GRANT,SELL, AND CONVEY both TRACTS? If he only sold TRACT ONE,
> why would he reserve to himself access across the 50 Right of Way?
> Maybe non-exclusive is the key word.
It looks to me that the property interest conveyed in Tract Two was an easement estate only. Mr. Grantor wanted to make it perfectly clear, apparently, that the easement was one that could be used in common with Mr. Grantee.
Looks to me like he intended to sell only tract 1, but also very clumsily said that both he and the buyer of tract 1 could use the road.
Access To Mineral Rights?
Tract one was sold, except for the mineral rights. The access easement allows the grantor to get to tract one to extract his minerals.
Tract two is not in fact a tract.
Paul in PA
i appreciate the reply.
Access To Mineral Rights?
> Tract one was sold, except for the mineral rights. The access easement allows the grantor to get to tract one to extract his minerals.
Probably not. Assuming that oil and gas are the minerals in question (hardly a stretch as an assumption), the mineral owner would likely drill in an offset location that wasn't on the 10 ac. and by directional drilling end up with the hole under it.
I agree with Bill
If I’ve correctly interpreted the situation, Smith has sold 10.10 acres to Brown but retains ownership of land on both sides of Tract 1. He wants to grant Brown an easement for ingress and egress across 3094 feet of the land he still owns so Brown can get to the 10.10 acres. Smith doesn’t need an easement to the 3094 feet because he still owns it.
However, the easement continues to run along the north line of Tract, so it sounds to me as if Smith needs to reserve an easement for himself so he has access to the remainder of the original parcel that lies west of Tract 1.
The proper way to do it would be to grant an easement to Brown for the 3094 feet and reserve an easement to Smith across the north line of Tract 1.
Parcel 2's deed language in it's everyday meaning is clear: parcel 2 is a non-exclusive right-of-way and easement for ingress and egress.
I agree with Bill
I agree. The way they worded it causes problems. Tract one can't have an easement across it to itself. Because the fifty foot easement does not exist across tract one, the reservation over the fifty foot easement could be challenged in that location. The grantor may have to build a new road around the 10 acre tract. At the least it could cost them some legal fees.
I agree with Bill
I missed the detail that the strip subject to a grant and reservation of an easement runs across Tract Two. In that light, I still don't find the language of the deed particularly ambiguous. The conveyance has to be interpreted as a whole, so the fact that the grantor conveys Tract One doesn't prevent him from making the easement reservation across that portion of Tract Two that crosses it. The language of grant and reservation would, I think, be understood in light of what would ordinarily be intended. It is hardly a model of good practice, but it isn't so ambiguous as to be void.
I agree with Bill
Yeah, I agree the outcome of an argument over it "should" result in what common sense would indicate is the intent of the language as a whole. Unfortunately, too many times a contrary decision is handed down based on misinterpretation of individual legal principles, seemingly in isolation from the greater picture. The language presents an opportunity for disagreeable people to argue. If I came across this I would urge a reformation of the contract language if was not too late. Being right or wrong is hardly the point where legal arguments are concerned.
I agree with Bill
> If I came across this I would urge a reformation of the contract language if was not too late. Being right or wrong is hardly the point where legal arguments are concerned.
Yes, if it were still possible, a correction instrument would definitely be in order. As to anticipating how a local court might rule were the language of the present deed to be disputed, you also make a point born out by experience. However, if the scenario is that the court system becomes increasingly unpredictable and untied from any settled principles and precedents, what's left, trial by combat?