California Surveyors Forums

I'm encountering a situation for the first time that I'm sure is not that unique.

Martens owns a large parcel.
Conveys to Peterson in 1930 a certain parcel of land.
In 1931 Martens conveys a second parcel to Peterson. The legal description for the second parcel has a well defined overlap with the first conveyance to Peterson a year earlier. No harm, no foul, same owner owns both parcels.

Sometime later Peterson conveys the second parcel to a third party.

What does Peterson own? The entire description received in 1930? Or since the parcels came under same ownership, the original overlap became a non issue, and when Peterson conveyed the 1931 parcel to a third party, the third party gets the entire legal description, including the overlap?

My take is that Peterson loses the overlap. Peterson used the same legal description when Peterson sold off the 1931 parcel, and if Peterson wanted to keep the overlap, Peterson should've changed the legal description. The overlap is clear to a surveyor. I doubt Peterson had any knowledge of the overlap, this area is a mess. Does that matter?

I guess the ultimate question is do overlaps in a sense "ripen" when they come into existence, and should you evaluate them as if you're a surveyor in 1932? Or since overlaps don't exist when ownership is the same, they need to be reevaluated in light of subsequent conveyances? Do jr/sr rights "reset" every time parcels come under same ownership, even if the same "defective" legal descriptions are used later on?

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

You don't have enough evidence at this time to resolve the boundary. Typically for developed parcels, you would have to dig quite bit more in to what occurred and when.

If it was two vacant lots that have never been surveyed, Peterson is junior to the piece he conveyed. The Grantee typically gets the benefit of the doubt with any ambiguities.

PE_PLS wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:50 am My take is that Peterson loses the overlap. Peterson used the same legal description when Peterson sold off the 1931 parcel, and if Peterson wanted to keep the overlap, Peterson should've changed the legal description. The overlap is clear to a surveyor. I doubt Peterson had any knowledge of the overlap, this area is a mess

In the absence of any evidence of occupation (two undeveloped lots situation), this would be my assertion as well. To be thorough, I would perform research to assess any evidence of what Peterson represented that he was conveying to Third Party. Not much more to be done

For Junior/Senior considerations it is clear that 1931 deed gets its full due and original 1930 lands of Peterson is left holding the bag.

We had one of those situations but it was a 3 sibling family that all starting giving each other partial portions that was like a revolving door. I punted to a lawyer :)


Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County