MorePosted By paul plutae on 3/22/2009 at 4:55 PM
Interesting job..
Back in early 2000 or so a developer had started proceedings for a 200 lot subdivision. A field survey of the boundary was done and in the course of that, certain areas of the 58 acre perimeter, encroachmenst were discovered in a few places. Instead of trying to resolve these areas to free up the land that was involved, they developer/surveyor decided to just divide those areas up by making them remnant parcels by virtue of the subdivision and then grant those remnant parcels to the parties that were adjacent to them.
Towards the end of the year the map was on the verge of recording and the state approached the developer offering to buy the land, but the deal had to be done before 2001, the developer accepted the states offer.
The plan was to record a deed that would still leave the remnant parcels that would be transferred to other parties. On December 31, 2000, the developer sold all of his interest in the land to a state agency, but the deed that was recorded did not leave any remnant parcels. The state decided that filing a corrected deed would solve the problem..It still has not been filed.
In 2003 the developer quit claimed a parcel of land to Jones, one of the parties adjacent to what was supposed to be a remnant parcel. The only problem with this is, the developer did not own anything to quitclaim.
In 2006 the state made an attempt to file the corrected deed but failed. The county recorder refused to record it because some minor items were missing. I dont know the exact name of them, Ownership Transfer Forms I think, but it was not a big deal, just a few documents that needed to be had before the recording could take place. The state then dropped the ball.
In 2007 Jones sold thier land to Smith, including the remnant parcel, we'll cal it Parcel 4, that was quit claimed to Jones in 2003.
Smith then wanted to build a gazebo on his land and hired an architect. The architect contaced the city and in reviewing the application, it was discoved that Parcel 4 did not show up in thetax assessors map or the citys GIS system.
The architect contacts the client and he contacts me.
Now..in your opinion, does the title company that insured Parcel 4 for Smith have a leg to stand on?
To read the rest of this thread, visit www.i-boards.com/bnp/pob/messages.asp?MsgID=1385577&ThreadID=131465&IsResponse=False#1385577
Interesting job..
Back in early 2000 or so a developer had started proceedings for a 200 lot subdivision. A field survey of the boundary was done and in the course of that, certain areas of the 58 acre perimeter, encroachmenst were discovered in a few places. Instead of trying to resolve these areas to free up the land that was involved, they developer/surveyor decided to just divide those areas up by making them remnant parcels by virtue of the subdivision and then grant those remnant parcels to the parties that were adjacent to them.
Towards the end of the year the map was on the verge of recording and the state approached the developer offering to buy the land, but the deal had to be done before 2001, the developer accepted the states offer.
The plan was to record a deed that would still leave the remnant parcels that would be transferred to other parties. On December 31, 2000, the developer sold all of his interest in the land to a state agency, but the deed that was recorded did not leave any remnant parcels. The state decided that filing a corrected deed would solve the problem..It still has not been filed.
In 2003 the developer quit claimed a parcel of land to Jones, one of the parties adjacent to what was supposed to be a remnant parcel. The only problem with this is, the developer did not own anything to quitclaim.
In 2006 the state made an attempt to file the corrected deed but failed. The county recorder refused to record it because some minor items were missing. I dont know the exact name of them, Ownership Transfer Forms I think, but it was not a big deal, just a few documents that needed to be had before the recording could take place. The state then dropped the ball.
In 2007 Jones sold thier land to Smith, including the remnant parcel, we'll cal it Parcel 4, that was quit claimed to Jones in 2003.
Smith then wanted to build a gazebo on his land and hired an architect. The architect contaced the city and in reviewing the application, it was discoved that Parcel 4 did not show up in thetax assessors map or the citys GIS system.
The architect contacts the client and he contacts me.
Now..in your opinion, does the title company that insured Parcel 4 for Smith have a leg to stand on?
To read the rest of this thread, visit www.i-boards.com/bnp/pob/messages.asp?MsgID=1385577&ThreadID=131465&IsResponse=False#1385577
