California Surveyors Forums

I am retracing a parcel of land whose parent parcel was a lot created by a tract map in 1910. Since then and up into the 60's the land was cut up and now the original lot is 6 different parcels. Because of conflicts in the wording of some of the deeds it is apparent that I will have to do a chain of title search on all 6 parcels to determine who has junior and senior rights. No big deal.

All this made me wonder something, and here is my question for you folks: Do you as a surveyor always determine who has junior/senior rights, even when there doesn't APPEAR to be the need? The reason I'm asking is imagine a scenario where are you retracing 2 parcels created out of a parent parcel. The current deeds are straightforward and without conflict, one says the east half of lot X, the other says the west half of lot X. No conflict, and apart from other data you would simply prorate any excess or deficiency to each parcel. But say you get curious and you want to determine who has junior/senior rights, even though you don't need to know that to resolve the boundary. Low and behold you start finding old deeds that say the "westerly 50 feet of lot X" and the "easterly 50 feet of lot X". You determine that sometime along the way the legal description was changed, which we all know happens quite often.

As I was at the recorder's office yesterday I started wondering to myself, should I as a surveyor always perform a search to determine junior/senior rights, and to uncover legal descriptions that have been rewritten even if the current deeds have no discrepancies? Should I look for problems, even if there doesn't appear to be any problems? Because I'm asking these questions, its probably obvious to you all that I don't do these searches for every survey, only those in which I discover discrepancies, or need to know who has junior/senior rights.

I want to hear from others out there, do you folks always go back in the chain of title for every survey you do, no matter what? Or are you like me, and only do it when you see a need?

Dylan,

Good timing with your questions. I've been wondering the same thing and almost posted those concerns last night.

I'm currently working on a particularly messy 20 acre rural parcel in which the legal descriptions for it and the adjoining parcels have been rewritten several times over the last fifty years or so. The current legal describes the subject parcel as an aliquot part: east half of SE 1/4 of NE 1/4. Looking at the old deeds, I see that this parcel had been split up into at least four parcels at one time but is currently shown as one legal parcel with no indication of the prior splits. The older deeds make calls to some of the interior section lines, but also have conflicting metes and bounds dimensions, such as calling for 660 feet. The deeds for adjoiners are similar with numerous conflicting dimensions over the years, but some have been rewritten to call for the aliquot lines. There are remains of very old fencelines here and there that might correspond with some of the older deed locations.

In 1979 the 20 acre parcel was part of a 30 acre parcel. At that time, the 20 acre parcel was split off through a county appoved subdivision, but no map was filed. In 1981 the surveyor files a map showing the subdivision, but the south line the parcel has been changed some from what the 1979 approved deeds called for. For example, per the 1981 survey, the southerly boundary of the subject parcel is no longer the east-west center section line. Instead, the surveyor held the bearing of "East" from the East 1/4 corner, causing significant shift to the north. For some reason, the current deed for the subject property does not agree with the 1979 survey, since it calls for the aliquot part.

Also, the 1981 survey does not show any of the numerous fence encroachments along the westerly line of the parcel, and does not address any of the conflicting deed dimensions contained in the adjoiner's deeds. (The surveyor states on his map that all fencelines are shown)

So, needless to say, a surveyor could spend months trying to resolve all of the potential junior-senior rights issues with a project such as this, and still not be 100% sure of the solution.

My tentative solution is to accept the 1981 survey as the boundary. The north and south ends of the west line have been monumented for over thirty years now but this line still conflicts with old fences along the various adjoinners.. I've been dealing with these encroachments by telling the adjoiners that they can have the disputed property if they want are willing to legalize the boundary through court proceedings or through a property line adjustment process in which they pay for all associated costs. So far none of them are willing to take me up on my offer, and are argreeing to the location of my survey.

So, I guess my answer to your question would be that it depends on the nature of your project.

What is the likelihood that you'll end up in court? What is the value of the disputed property? How agreeable are the neighbors to your boundary locations?

It would be so nice to be able to easily do research on title chain, if only all counties had an easy to use system.

I often wonder how many surveys have been filed (incorrectly) without benefit of a proper chain of title search.

Just because there is no disagreement, doesn't mean the "chosen" line of convenience is correct.

Unfortunately, a chain of title is only performed when a dispute of evidence is apparent. How nice it would be if each county had a "layered" style arbritation program for all property in the county.

Just a dreamer . . .
Nice question Dylan

Hmmm, which title company are you using which you can state, "No big deal," or "The title company...will often help me out free of charge..."? It has been my experience most title companies do not have experienced personnel to produce a quality chain of title let alone an inexpensive one. I realize that if a parcel is in escrow, the title companies might provide a chain of title for "free"; however, if the parcel in question is not in escrow, I have been quoted $1000 to $10,000 for each parcel. Just curious.

Jon

I've been to the recorder's office many times and using the "digital reel" I do the chain of title myself. It takes me a few hours, but I can get what I need without having to filter it through someone else and usually its not a "big deal". I haven't had a title company do one for me though for free, unless, as you said, it is currently in escrow.

I've had the same experience. Around here Chicago Title has it's plant open to most surveyors without charge. You can usually just ask for customer service to get vesting deeds. However, because of the recent consolidation of many local plants into one large one down to L.A. or Fresno, we hired a title officer to work for us and use the local plant. He does chains and my parent parcel research in 1/3 the time as I would. Nice to have that luxury! We have arrangements for him to do research in Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.

To answer PE/PLS question: Yes you should. If you're being hired to do a boundary survey, then you MUST research all adjoining deeds and see if there is a conflict. If it's a PM or FM, then find the parent parcel and see if it conflicts with the adjoiners. If you not doing this what will be your defense in court?

Eric,

Just to be clear, my question wasn't should you research adjoining deeds, the answer is, of course! My question specifically is should one do a chain of title for adjoiners, even if there doesn't appear to be a conflict with current legal descriptions. I ask this question since legal descriptions often are rewritten and there may be conflict in past deeds, that do not appear in current deeds. I'm speaking specifically regarding a situation where you have deeds that were all cut out of a parent parcel, where past legal descriptions if they have been changed may affect your resolution.

Dylan,

That simple complex answer is a definate maybe.
But really, if you find conflicting boundary evidence, it may be wise to do a chain on the owner in conflict.
I just did one today back to 1947 and as someone earlier stated " no changes in the legal"

In my case, my client is not correct in their thinking they have misintepreted their own deed. But what IF the adjoiner did have a difference at original time of sale. maybe a simple line like "as measured perpendicular to the railroad tracks" This could change eveything and my clients would be correct.

I dont think its our responsibility to go searching in every closet for monsters.
Sometimes (more often than not) things just DO work out.

"good"

"yippie yayay mini sirloin burgers"

Let the evidence be your guide. We have to make decisions based upon something....,that something is evidence. While it is handy to throw around an old adage or two, it is generally dangerous and likely to get you into trouble. Ken offers good advice, I believe.
(see the chart in Brown's Evidence and Procedures,fourth edition page 15.)

Sometimes the evidence will demand that you get a chain of title, because the issue cannot be properly addressed without a chain of title. Sometimes it is clear from the evidence that a chain of title is not needed.

For my money, I would never want to be in court and only have as my answer....

Well your Honor, what am I supposed to do? Fix the whole world?

Or

Well your Honor, I can't look in every closet for monsters.

On the contary, I want a sound professional opinion based upon evidence and to be able to demostrate that I did more than follow the minimum standard of care.

So ask yourself, when you are looking over the pile of deeds , if another surveyor exercising ordinary prudence and adhereing to a minimum standard of care would get a chain of title. If you think the answer is that they would, then you had better go get one.