With no unique parcel identifier. To me 'The south 15' of Lot 10', means exactly what it says, so to argue that the triangle access easement is a separate lot and the easement wraps around it, just seems a bit of a stretch. It's an access easement, that's all. Referring to it in a note as a parcel doesn't make it one, or am I missing something. If they wanted it to be a stand alone parcel, they would have given it a solid line type and unique identifier.
They are calling it a easement, I think they were trying to differentiate it from the already existing 15 ft wide easement....parcel was a poor choice of words to added to note, after already calling it a easement.
I agree, unless there another document that created it, or something extraneous to the plat.
If they insist on calling it a separate parcel, I half joking told them to refer to it as 'Parcel Note 5' in their legal so the next poor schmuck like me doesn't have to guess what they really meant.
We had someone at our Assessor's office erroneously (I hope!) mislabel a Temporary Construction Easement at an Interstate Highway Traffic Interchange as a parcel. The adjoiner approached the DOT and told them that they had landlocked both he and other owners from access to the Highway. Even though the DOT plans clearly labeled it as a TCE, and there was a recorded TCE document that the adjoiner had signed, he claimed he was landlocked. There was nothing of record showing that it was anything other than a TCE. The adjoiner argued that the fact that it had a parcel number on the Assessor's map was proof that it was a parcel. One could browse through successive copies of the Assessor's maps and clearly see where the annotation had been changed from a TCE to a Parcel. Adjoiner's Title Co. paid him $250,000 in damages, bought the parcel from the DOT, and transferred it to the adjoiner for $0. Those entry-level scriveners have amazing powers!
You made me look.
It's real easy for me to get comfortable with the meaning of a term after years of use only to discover that the meaning I've associated with the term is colloquial.
Is the term "Parcel" defined by law in the jurisdiction this is in?
If this is the MSB, note that the MSB doesn't define "Parcel" in 43.05 (maybe they do elsewhere...).
The AK statutes don't seem to have the definition of "Parcel" but the term is used frequently. Where it is used it frequently seems to be synonymous with Tract and Lot but that use isn't exclusive - it's use isn't limited to Tracts or Lots. The term is used in the definition of Subdivision in AS 34.55.044 (7) (for 34.55 Uniform Land Sales Practices Act) and in 40.15.900 (5). The statutes use "Parcel" as a grab-all term for a chunk of land: lot, tract, aliquot part, remainders, area, etc.
11 AAC 53.900 (39) "tract" means a lot or parcel of land, and especially an odd-sized parcel within a section, such as on the west side of the west tier of
sections in a township
So... in the absence of a definition spelled out by the platting authority or the state or other authority with jurisdiction on the matter, I turn to Black's.
Black's online (2nd edition?) says "In the law of real property parcel signifies a part or portion of land. As used of chattels, it signifies a small package or bundle. See State v. Jordan, 36 Fla. 1, 17 South. 742; Miller v. Burke, 6 Daly (N. T.) 174; Johnson v. Sirret, 153 N. Y. 51, 46 N. E. 1035."
The 9th edition has changed to say "1. A small packager or bundle. 2. A tract of land: esp., a continuous tract or plot of land in one possession, no part of which is separated from the rest by intervening land in another's possession."
Unless there is a different controlling definition for "parcel", I'd read that note to mean that the subdivider wanted to make sure everyone knows that Note 5 Easement is for access and that it doesn't go away if other easements are vacated or changed - it's it's own easement. Having a parcel within, and part of, Lot 10 doesn't sound contradictory or erroneous when using either Black's definition.
Or not....
Looks, like this is in Denali Borough, even if their is a definition of parcel, nothing in their platting ordinances is enforced in any consistent way.
Actually it looks like it might have been recorded before the Bourough formed. Maybe even before the state became platting authority?
JKinAK, post: 429809, member: 7219 wrote: You made me look.
It's real easy for me to get comfortable with the meaning of a term after years of use only to discover that the meaning I've associated with the term is colloquial.Is the term "Parcel" defined by law in the jurisdiction this is in?
If this is the MSB, note that the MSB doesn't define "Parcel" in 43.05 (maybe they do elsewhere...).The AK statutes don't seem to have the definition of "Parcel" but the term is used frequently. Where it is used it frequently seems to be synonymous with Tract and Lot but that use isn't exclusive - it's use isn't limited to Tracts or Lots. The term is used in the definition of Subdivision in AS 34.55.044 (7) (for 34.55 Uniform Land Sales Practices Act) and in 40.15.900 (5). The statutes use "Parcel" as a grab-all term for a chunk of land: lot, tract, aliquot part, remainders, area, etc.
11 AAC 53.900 (39) "tract" means a lot or parcel of land, and especially an odd-sized parcel within a section, such as on the west side of the west tier of
sections in a townshipSo... in the absence of a definition spelled out by the platting authority or the state or other authority with jurisdiction on the matter, I turn to Black's.
Black's online (2nd edition?) says "In the law of real property parcel signifies a part or portion of land. As used of chattels, it signifies a small package or bundle. See State v. Jordan, 36 Fla. 1, 17 South. 742; Miller v. Burke, 6 Daly (N. T.) 174; Johnson v. Sirret, 153 N. Y. 51, 46 N. E. 1035."The 9th edition has changed to say "1. A small packager or bundle. 2. A tract of land: esp., a continuous tract or plot of land in one possession, no part of which is separated from the rest by intervening land in another's possession."
Unless there is a different controlling definition for "parcel", I'd read that note to mean that the subdivider wanted to make sure everyone knows that Note 5 Easement is for access and that it doesn't go away if other easements are vacated or changed - it's it's own easement. Having a parcel within, and part of, Lot 10 doesn't sound contradictory or erroneous when using either Black's definition.
Or not....
Is there a separate Grant Deed? If so, is it merely a grant of easement or are there specific words of conveyance that indicate a fee interest?
When an attorney draws a deed conveying it.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
aliquot, post: 429818, member: 2486 wrote: Looks, like this is in Denali Borough, even if their is a definition of parcel, nothing in their platting ordinances is enforced in any consistent way.
Actually it looks like it might have been recorded before the Bourough formed. Maybe even before the state became platting authority?
Yea. Denali Borough. Problem I encountered stemmed from another more recent easement description written by a non surveyor that I was tasked with locating on the ground that described the 'south 15' of Lot 10'. They had interpreted the 'Note 5 Parcel' in question as being excluded from Lot 10 due to the 'parcel' designation and had intended their easement to 'wrap' around it. They were a tad bit miffed when I told them differently based on the verbiage in their description. I think the intent was expressed clearly enough on the original plat, but a poor choice of wording left some with the impression that it was a separate 'parcel' and something more than just an encumbrance.
If a parcel has a purpose attached to it, it is an easement as I understand it. I think a tract or parcel of land is simply an identifiable piece of land whether it is called an easement or a fee-simple parcel
Poorly worded plat note. Seems to imply a second and overlying easement. Easement definition is that it is an encumbrance on the fee owner for rights of others to use the property for a specific use and possibly specific term. A few sticks in the bundle of sticks of property rights in real property.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Note 5 is inane. It has no meaning.
How can it be a separate parcel without a conveyance or falling within the platting laws? An assessor merely calling it a "parcel" doesn't make it so. Without a conveyance specifying the quality and type of interest conveyed other than as an easement, it isn't a parcel.
Does any state authorize the assessor to create parcels willy-nilly?
A term may have a variety of definition or meaning, which seems to depend upon the context of usage. The term tax parcel is generally a label for the use of the assessor. In some cases an easement may be given a unique parcel identifier (drainage, natural area open space) or a leased portion of larger property. This makes it possible to apply a different tax rate to portions of a property.
