A few years back there was a GIS guy using the TNRIS (Texas Natural Resources Information Systems) survey shape files to make GIS maps for people selling desert land on eBay. I remember several people gave him advice on how to improve his maps with additional metadata and disclaimers. I think he was turned in to the surveying board too but I don't remember the results.
Got my first survey request today for a 10 acre parcel in West Texas and one of his "LOTS LAYOUT" sketches was attached. I'm the lucky guy who gets to check one of his "plats".
I'm curious how this is going to wind up and what occupation may have been established out there in the interim. Hope my client isn't stuck firm in the belief that he owns exactly 10 acres exactly where he thought it was. And maybe the other lucky land rush buyers who snapped up the adjoining parcels didn't run out there with their garmin and start fencing their new 10 acre ranch. This will be interesting.
CARTO/Remote Sensing Consultants
Andy,
We all wish you the best of luck. 😀
it's like these unrecorded plats seek me out. I got an email from a realtor a few months back who found me after being led here by a google search. Nothing has come from that conversation, but I have gotten a couple of other projects that fall in one of these unrecorded plats and let me tell you that it is a big s**t sandwich trying to figure these out.
The latest pile of fun involves a called 142.8 acre tract that was subdivided into 28 +/- 5.10 acre tracts. Of course, it was all on paper and based off of some highly questionable GIS data.
In the field, I find that there is only 136.08 acres in the original tract and no evidence of occupation or corner monuments and the actual location of the parent tract is several hundred feet north of the location claimed by the GIS mapper. If you hold the intent of the plat to divide the section into 28 equal lots, you only get 4.86 acres per lot. (County subdivision requirements necessitate plat approval for lots smaller than 5 acres).
Normally, I think the way to reconstruct the subdivision would be junior senior rights by the deed descriptions, but since the subdivision plat is filed with most of the deeds, showing the intent of the subdivider and there is no evidence on the ground showing the divisions have been affected, I'm inclined to prorate everything instead of holding junior/senior. Apparently I'll be the first surveyor to set any monuments.
In quoting Ken Gold, "Without doubt, apportionment is not to be applied where senior rights exists... In Craddock v. Humble Oil & Refining Co. 234 S.W.2d 137 (1950) is sufficient explanation of the obvious. It ruled that where there is shortage in land conveyed by two separate deeds, the shortage is properly placed in the junior grant. Such is the situation with unrecorded subdivisions. Where this type subdivision is encountered, seniority in conveyance will normally control. An exception could be where several adjoining tracts are conveyed simultaneously. However, subsequent subdividing of the initial or original tracts into lesser lots could platted or recorded. Then apportionment would apply if the later division markers were lost or never set".
Sounds like a big mess, let us know how it turns out trying to follow the GIS clicksteps.
I'm trying to put together some before and after pics to share with the class but I got busy with other projects. Maybe on Friday. I'd appreciate input
Andy Nold, post: 393187, member: 7 wrote: In quoting Ken Gold, "Without doubt, apportionment is not to be applied where senior rights exists... In Craddock v. Humble Oil & Refining Co. 234 S.W.2d 137 (1950) is sufficient explanation of the obvious. It ruled that where there is shortage in land conveyed by two separate deeds, the shortage is properly placed in the junior grant. Such is the situation with unrecorded subdivisions. Where this type subdivision is encountered, seniority in conveyance will normally control. An exception could be where several adjoining tracts are conveyed simultaneously. However, subsequent subdividing of the initial or original tracts into lesser lots could platted or recorded. Then apportionment would apply if the later division markers were lost or never set".
If it was a paper subdivision even if the lots were sold off at different times, would this not lend itself to a partition of an estate by the court or a lawyer, which I believe the courts have generally considered a simultaneous conveyance. If that is the case then I think proportionate measure, in the absence of any monumentation would be the correct method.
Each deed comes with a handy-dandy survey description, plat and subdivision plat attached. Fresh coordinates are attached to all the corners so you can figure out where you little piece of heaven is with your handheld gps unit. (Sorry about the image quality, I have requested better copies and recording information).
Here's a comparison of the GIS linework in green and the surveyed lines:
It's interesting that the GIS section line as well as the curvature of the road on the southeast corner seem to match the aerial picture so closely. Unfortunately, the road is not on the section line.
And, because there is a call for the southeast corner of the section, here is the subdivision plat adjusted to hold the southeast corner instead of the GIS coordinates.
wow!! coordinates are based on the UTM system and then no NE's are given, just LAT, LONGS; at least in the one drawing, I see a coordinate on the POB on the large map.
And in decimal minutes.
decimal minutes were great for quad plotting in the old NAD27 system, not used them since.........
Are you going to stake just one of these lots? They need a total replat, what a cluster 🙁
Andy Nold, post: 393187, member: 7 wrote: In quoting Ken Gold, "Without doubt, apportionment is not to be applied where senior rights exists... In Craddock v. Humble Oil & Refining Co. 234 S.W.2d 137 (1950) is sufficient explanation of the obvious. It ruled that where there is shortage in land conveyed by two separate deeds, the shortage is properly placed in the junior grant. Such is the situation with unrecorded subdivisions. Where this type subdivision is encountered, seniority in conveyance will normally control. An exception could be where several adjoining tracts are conveyed simultaneously. However, subsequent subdividing of the initial or original tracts into lesser lots could platted or recorded. Then apportionment would apply if the later division markers were lost or never set".
Ken really should have chosen the words a bit better. It's true if tracts are under common ownership, that junior/senior rights are extinguished of the original rights (within the tracts), but if the tracts were created simultaneously, then regardless of whether or not they were conveyed at the same time, one boundary line is no better than the next. One not need look further than the West Texas original SURVEYS that are proportioned in inside a railroad block.
I think in this case that is applicable because the subdivision plat is attached to most, if not all of the deeds. But, I had another case in Loving County where there was no evidence of a plat filed with the various Lots. I ended up using Junior/Senior rights, putting the lots in sequentially. Because the original divider still owned a lot of the land, the deficiency was all put into his remaining lots. Sure screwed up the common corners.
"This information is for the purpose of locating your property only"
Isn't that what a boundary survey basically is ?
Here's the one where I did not proportion. The broken corners at Lot 2 and 5 and between 7, 9 and 10 are the most apparent differences. Again, no occupation or monumentation on the ground (except the section corners from ~ 1883), but I felt without a plat to go by, it was best to hold the deed descriptions. I had to pull deeds for the entire section and draw them in chronological order. Lots 3 and 4 still belong to the original owner and were shorted some acreage. I think Lot 41 or 42 has an oilwell on it now. The production company bought the tract from some lady in Florida if I remember correctly. She was probably one of the lucky few who purchased this otherwise worthless land that will make out alright. (I'm pretty sure none of these other tracts have legal access).
Andy Nold, post: 393187, member: 7 wrote: In quoting Ken Gold, "Without doubt, apportionment is not to be applied where senior rights exists... In Craddock v. Humble Oil & Refining Co. 234 S.W.2d 137 (1950) is sufficient explanation of the obvious. It ruled that where there is shortage in land conveyed by two separate deeds, the shortage is properly placed in the junior grant. Such is the situation with unrecorded subdivisions. Where this type subdivision is encountered, seniority in conveyance will normally control. An exception could be where several adjoining tracts are conveyed simultaneously. However, subsequent subdividing of the initial or original tracts into lesser lots could platted or recorded. Then apportionment would apply if the later division markers were lost or never set".
Were any of the corners of the survey within which the subdivision was platted actually marked on the ground at the time that the subdivider acquired the land? If not, then what you're dealing with appears to be a completely paper subdivision made without any knowledge of conditions on the ground. As a result, the question wouldn't be where the calls in the field notes, locate the property since those were evidently made in total ignorance of where the survey corner to which they tied was located. The erroneous lats and longs merely demonstrate the subdivider's ignorance.
My own sentiment based upon what few facts you've related is that an equitable solution is in order to reconfigure the entire sudivision in a way that places the least burden on the landowners. Naturally, without their agreement, that is simply a future dispute waiting to happen.
The southeast and northeast corners of the section are in place, 400-500 feet away from where the subdivision "plack" indicates the corners are. The original subdivider's deed calls for section 3 and does not contain a metes and bounds description or any calls for monuments.
The section to the northwest is part of Block 13, a senior survey by the H&GN Ry Company which was aligned to embrace as much of the Toyah Creek floodplain as possible.
Kent McMillan, post: 393391, member: 3 wrote: My own sentiment based upon what few facts you've related is that an equitable solution is in order to reconfigure the entire sudivision in a way that places the least burden on the landowners. Naturally, without their agreement, that is simply a future dispute waiting to happen.
This one has the odd feature that the land descriptions are locatable and the various purchasers could have presumably gone out with their recreational-grade GPS receivers and determined exactly where it was situated. Caveat emptor and tough luck, Charlie if you failed to do due diligence before you bought the land.
Some of the lots will lose significant acreage to conflicts and may not be able to be lawfully resold without platting. Doubly tough luck there.
Since the subdivision as constructed by that method doesn't actual cover all of the tract that the subdivider owned (although he thought that it did and represented it to do so), that would leave the subdivider as record owner of some of the unplatted remainder of his land. More tough luck for the folks in the subdivision.
I suppose that it boils down to the cost of different remedies in relation to the cost of the land. Any remedy that cost more than the land is worth is probably not the best option and any remedy that will leave the door open for further disputes probably isn't either.