Community Forums

Share:

Section Subdivision  

Page 2 / 3

thebionicman
Posts: 2995
Member
(@thebionicman)
2,500+ posts
Joined: 5 years ago

Evidence of original location doesn't move any corners or lines, it perpetuates them..

Reply
thebionicman
Posts: 2995
Member
(@thebionicman)
2,500+ posts
Joined: 5 years ago

Evidence of original location doesn't move any corners or lines, it perpetuates them..

Reply
Dave Karoly
Posts: 10070
Member
(@dave-karoly)
10,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

The description was an expediency to get the deal done. Then the parties laid out and marked the boundaries on the ground signifying their intentions. A half of a forty could reasonably be interpreted as 660 feet or it could mean half the distance; if the parties implemented the words using a reasonable lay interpretation that will control over the technically correct interpretation. Now if the boundary was not physically established and the Land Surveyor is asked to survey it then use the technical interpretation, otherwise retrace what the correct parties mutually did. Simple, right? There is no problem with title.

Reply
aliquot
Posts: 999
Member
(@aliquot)
500+ posts
Joined: 8 years ago

Dave hit the nail on the head. 

We must differentiate between situations were it is appropriate to utilize the true aliquot part corners versus the established and occupied corners.

Sometimes both are needed.

Reply
aliquot
Posts: 999
Member
(@aliquot)
500+ posts
Joined: 8 years ago
Posted by: thebionicman

Evidence of original location doesn't move any corners or lines, it perpetuates them..

The true aliquot part corners don't move, but the corner of a parcel described by aliquot parts can.

Reply
1 Reply
thebionicman
Member
(@thebionicman)
Joined: 5 years ago

2,500+ posts
Posts: 2995

Completely agreed. I hammer on those finer point distinctions. They really do have a practical impact. When we let those 'little things' slide the courts assume they are really 'little things'. Much turmoil usually follows...

Reply
Page 2 / 3