California Surveyors Forums

What we've got here is a failure to communicate! or do we?

Joking aside, In my limited experience this is the first time I have encountered what appears to be intended as a simultaneous conveyance by deeds. I have assumed thus far that simultaneous conveyance's were reserved for subdivisions, most likely incorrectly. Assuming no evidence of occupation on the ground, should the principals of proration apply? I've attached the deeds as a .pdf the recording times and dates are the same to the minute. My knee jerk reaction was to use the page number of recordation as evidence as seniority ie: 252 OR 24 is senior to 252 or 26. But now I think prorations are in order.

Surely some of you can share your insight? Much appreciated in advance.

Looks like a family distribution.
The three deeds are recorded at the same time 8:51 am Dec 30, 1949 - I vote recorded concurrently.

Would like to have seen the signature dates but they appear not there.


Brian

No doubt the intent was simultaneous, as the time stamping indicates an orchestrated effort by the recorder, but... "Race to Record" (Civil Code 1214) states otherwise.

Thanks Brian, hey just read that code, I don't understand it.

Brian

It was written to protect innocent lenders and purchasers against secret sales, transfers, or conveyances and from undisclosed encumbrances/liens. Priority of recordation will ordinarily determine the rights of the parties if there are conflicting claims to the same parcel of land (in this case, portions thereof). The instrument recorded first in the chain of title would generally achieve priority over subsequently recorded instruments. The definition of the “Race to Record” or “Race-Notice Recording” statutes/laws is intended to describe the manner of achieving priority in the chain of title. Generally, the person winning the race gains priority.... Generally.

My gut still says instantaneous conveyance

I hate to "assume".
also much hated are proportional solutions

both are just guessing

In this case I say ignore the time stamps and look to the Book and Page sequence... then you realize they were simultaneous. No logic path leads to "concurrent"

PS: when you get done with te Survey, you are not finished.
Push HARD to get some sort of Boundary Line Agreement on record. If you don't I will come back from my grave and claim a contrary opinion. ;-)

Peter Ehlert wrote:I hate to "assume".
also much hated are proportional solutions

both are just guessing

In this case I say ignore the time stamps and look to the Book and Page sequence... then you realize they were simultaneous. No logic path leads to "concurrent"

PS: when you get done with te Survey, you are not finished.
Push HARD to get some sort of Boundary Line Agreement on record. If you don't I will come back from my grave and claim a contrary opinion. ;-)

PPS: my bet is that the Grantor and Grantees knew about "proper breakdowns" but the land value was not high and they figured a Real Survey of the whole damned section could be done IF someone was rich and anal.
Prove me wrong ;-)

simultaneous
[ˌsīməlˈtānēəs]
ADJECTIVE
occurring, operating, or done at the same time.
"a simultaneous withdrawal of all troops" · [more]
synonyms:
concurrent · happening at the same time · done at the same time · contemporaneous · concomitant · coinciding · coincident · synchronous · synchronized · synchronic · coexistent · parallel · side by side


The conveyance was like a parcel map with a deed. Back then just after WWII, the Grantee Grantor books did take a long time to fill out.
In this County the book and page numbers would continue for one multi paged conveyance. for example a 5 page grant would be 54 OR 22, 54 OR 23,
54 OR 24, 54 OR 25, and 54 OR 26.

Got to love our profession, I could defend both simultaneous or senior rights, all would depend what evidence is found on the ground.

Brian

Got to love our profession, I could defend both simultaneous or senior rights, all would depend what evidence is found on the ground.

Indeed, Mr Smith. Indeed.

Thanks everyone for the replies so far, very helpful. Please keep them coming!

let me throw a curveball now and attach a recently discovered map.

also some elements to note: this is in Siskiyou County, a rural County bordering Oregon. The land in question is not highly valued, relatively. No attempt has been made so far to gather parole evidence. The land is on an aluvial plane and this prevents fence building, so no lines of occupation have been discovered.

Wow. A proper survey, just a couple weeks before the deeds.
Assuming the math is the same (not gonna try on my cell phone) it appears likely no gap or overlap solution could be justified.
Kinda like a Record Data Parcel Map.... might be a little fluid, but the division lines are fixed.
Still, title is fuzzy on the exterior. Push to clean that up too is my advice.
Fun project.

Thanks Peter, yes the math is the same. It appears the Surveyor knew the South 16th line of Section 28 was short. 1318' by his accounts, this is the same as the deeds total and the map shows. It appears that the Surveyor put the deficiency in the west Parcel... ?

I came across a boundary agreement / LLA for two very large parcels in rolling hills, wherein each party quitclaimed the other side of a surveyed & monumented line. Very nice, except monuments were placed only every three courses, the lines contained tangent arcs, and always missed the closing monument by half a foot or more.

I conferred with the surveyors I knew, and the consensus was to perform a grant line adjustment between each pair of found monuments.

Siskiyou County - home of Bigfoot Scenic Byway!

This thread http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.or ... php?t=8079 touched on this topic pretty comprehensively, although in that situation the three deeds were each separated by one year. I believe proration was ultimately used by that surveyor, even despite the time difference between deeds. The issue in that one was proration vs. jr./sr. vs. gap in title.

The following cite from that thread seems applicable to your situation:

Clark 3rd Edition:
Sec 221 excerpt. "If the lands lying between known monuments or boundaries, be conveyed at the same time by distances, whether in equal or unequal portions, to different grantees in severalty, there being no intermediate monuments, or other means of ascertaining the location, and the distances do not correspond with those named in the deeds, such grantees will hold in proportion to the widths granted them respectively, in the deeds, whether there be an excess or deficiency in the distance." (emphasis mine)

I recall learning the general principle that if a parcel was subdivided by deeds executed at or near same time, and those deeds convey out the entire parent parcel of record, they should be treated as simultaneous conveyances and prorated if no controlling evidence was found upon the ground. The plat really seems to bring it all home as regards the intent of the grantor.

I am sure more references are available within Brown and other sources addressing this topic.

Good Luck!

Hey all,
I want to thank everyone who responded to this for taking the time to do so. I thought I'd share my resolution with ya'll cause there's nothing worse than an unfinished thread. Let me know what ya think.