simultaneous Conveyance

[VANCE]

this is where the boundary surveyor does more research and then will probably recommend a boundary agreement.

do the right thing and let all the parties know what you do and keep this thing out of court... everybody looses then.

except the lawyers

[7702]

"Think about selling the north 500 feet of a parcel first and then the south 500 feet next. if the lot is only 900' deep, the first parcel gets the land conveyed; the second parcel gets stuck with what's left. Same principle involved."

A valid principle in many cases, but in this situation, platted subdivisions are involved, so the following principle posted by Jim seems more appropriate:

"A subdivider who incorrectly describes the boundaries of a subdivision but owns all the lands monumented conveys title to the land improperly described."

However, I'm sure the contrary may be shown. (not much that's black and white in this profession)

[E_Page]

Whether or not we agree on the underlying principles which define the "technically correct" outcome, I am in full agreement with Mr. Ehlert on his advice to seek agreement among the affected landowners in an attempt to keep such a situation from going to litigation.

[Ian Wilson]

Evan:

I disagree.

Even though the '54 parcels weren't sold when the '60 parcels were, they were created prior to the '60 parcels.

The definition of the '54 exterior boundary was settled in 1954 by a subdivision map. The subdivision boundary was ostensibly vetted and insured. Even though the original owner retained all parcels until after the ’60 subdivision map, the boundaries of the ’54 parcels were fixed upon recording of the map in ’54.

The ’60 boundary extended over the ’54 boundary. Unfortunately, the ’60 boundary is junior to the ’54 map.

This is one of the reasons for implementing the Subdivision Map Act statewide. It is, essentially, a land registry system similar to the Torrens system. The boundaries established by subdivision are fixed, reviewed by peers, reviewed for conformance with zoning, subdivision and other ordinance and statutes and lodged in an official location available to the public. Through title insurance, the position of those boundaries is even guaranteed and defended as it would be under a Torrens Land Registry.

.

[Jim Frame]

"This is one of the reasons for implementing the Subdivision Map Act statewide. It is, essentially, a land registry system similar to the Torrens system."

The relative ineffectiveness of the SMA as a land registry system is amply demonstrated by the facts in the case at hand: both subdivisions received the same level of review and approval. And you already know how I feel about title insurance. :)

In my mind, this case isn't about seniority of title, it's about equity and the intent of the parites. The subdivider purported to transfer title to lots according to the 1960 plat, and his buyers are entitled to rely upon those dimensions against contrary claims of the subdivider. The latter isn't entitled to hide behind the "hidden line" of the 1954 plat, even if he didn't know about the overlap.

.

[steffan]

Myself, I would consider gathering more information. Other surveys, survey records of the original surveyor, talk with the landowners both past and present to see what they know about what they purchased. I would also carefully review how the found monuments relate with both subdivisions.
I would consider the fact that the 1960 map appears to clearly show the intended outcome of bounding the 1954 plat, not resubdividing it.
And then I would advise the landowners directly, with my advice based on my role as a surveyor, as I am neither a judge, jury or attorney.
That is the only advice I can offer here, particularly on a public forum, in regards to an actual case that is perhaps just now coming to the attention of the affected landowners.

[E_Page]

We don't have a Torrens type system. Properties get resubdivided on purpose from time to time, and they get partially resubdivided from time to time. And occasionally, a landowner ends up subdividing and conveying away some of his land that he may not have actually intended to.

If Ian Wilson, a Regular Guy owns that 900' (1000' by parent deed) parcel you mentioned a few posts back, conveys to Ian Wilson, a Married Man, the North 500', and then later sells the South 1/2 according to the survey by Jim Frame to Ben Lund, and Ben Lund occupies according to that survey, Ben Lund's claim to the overlapped 50' will be superior to Ian Wilson's even though Ian Wilson's conveyance was senior, and even if that N 500' had been surveyed (but the line not recognized by use).

I'm still with Jim on this one.

[Ben Lund]

In review… Evan, your post *(#22)* differs from Jims solution in that *you believe* the second subdivision now effectively resubdivides the first.

Jim, your point is that if Lot 3 is sold first then it gets the overlap and if Lot 11 is sold first then it gets the overlap.

Ian, you say that the first subdivision is senior and therefore Lot 11 gets the overlap.

I see all three theories as being very convincing and having good logic.

I found the “newer” version of Jim’s citation:

“Principle 3. A subdivider who describes the boundaries of a subdivision incorrectly but owns all the lands monumented conveys title to the land described improperly.” (12.5 of Brown’s BCLP 5th Ed)

Great discussion!

[E_Page]

I think that I more or less said what Jim said with a different (and perhaps more confusing) set of words.

[goodgps]

Does the statement "you cant sell, or subdivide what you dont own" still come into play ?

I lost the part where the subject lots from 1954, WERE or WERENT sold prior to the 1960 map ??

If the original owner kept title to these, then resubdivided his property, the 1954 lots may actually become jr.
But then i ask, what happens to the subdivision guarantee ?

Sorry if I missed those facts, A sledge hammer mistaked my foot to be a stake. funny how that effects the vision.

[7702]

"The Bowers subdivided a portion of their land in 1954 (see attached maps) and did not sell any of the lots."

"In 1960, the Bowers subdivided the remaining portion of their lands (a separate parcel)and started to sell the lots from the 1960 map."