 | | | Quit Claim Deed
Asked Jun 30, 2011, 02:36 PM
—
16 Answers If a Quit Claim Deed for property includes an exhibit (drawing of the property being conveyed) and a list of the land lots which takes precedent if the drawing does not include all the property in the list of land lots.
Thread Summary |
16 Answers
 | Expert | |
Jul 1, 2011, 03:02 PM
| | |
I think you have a real problem here. It appears that the purpose of the deed is to transfer ownership of the entire Brookfield West subdivision. The legal description is "the land lying and being within...the Brookfield West subdivision" and the rest of the language goes on to describe where that subdivision is located.
The intent of that legal description is not to transfer lot 188. The intent is to transfer the subdivision, which is described as being within lots a,b,c, etc. Since lot 188 has nothing to do with the subdivision and is not included in the exhibit, I can't see any court agreeing that the intent was to transfer the subdivision AND lot 188. Instead they will probably determine that the inclusion of lot 188 was a mistake. | | | | New Member | |
Jul 1, 2011, 03:14 PM
| | | Thanks
That was my interpretation also. Now waiting for an official title search to see what it says | | |  | Expert | |
Jul 1, 2011, 04:02 PM
| | | Quote:
Originally Posted by mvpmaggie  All tracts or parcels of land lying and being within the total perimeter of the Brookfield West subdivision (which subdivision is located within land lots 1146, 1159, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1229, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1288, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1294 and 1295 of the 2nd district, 2nd section of Fulton county, and land lots 114, 115, 185, 186, 251, 252, 314, 313, 253, 250, 187, 116, 183, 188 and 249 of the 1st district 2nd section of fulton county,) as depicted on Exhibit "b" attached hereto and incorpated herein by reference.
The concern is land lot 188 is not within the boundaries of the subdivision or reflected on the exhibit. | Not that it matters, but the structure of this description is a bit screwy. It would be more correct to say that the named "lots are within [the] subdivision"; or that the "lots compose the subdivision"; rather than saying "... Which subdivision is located within land lots ...". 
How about Lots 183, 185, 186, and 187? Are they within the subdivision? If Lot 188 is not part of the Brookfield West Subdivision, what is it a part of? Because it would seem quite odd if there were consecutively named lots which are in the subdivision, but the next lot number in the series (188) is not a part.
And how was the Brookfield West Subdivision originally created, by a plat? Are you sure that Lot 188 wasn't a part of the subdivision in the past?
There appear to be at least seven Fulton Counties in the U.S. Which state are we talking about, by the way? | | | | Expert | |
Jul 1, 2011, 04:36 PM
| | |
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK lawyer Not that it matters, but the structure of this description is a bit screwy. It would be more correct to say that the named "lots are within [the] subdivision"; or that the "lots compose the subdivision"; rather than saying "... Which subdivision is located within land lots ...". |
That's actually very common language for describing a subdivision before the subdivision map gets filed. And it would often be used after the filing if the entire subdivision was sold in one transfer. | | | | New Member | |
Jul 1, 2011, 06:22 PM
| | | Comment on AK lawyer's post Quote:
Originally Posted by AK lawyer Quote:
Originally Posted by mvpmaggie All tracts or parcels of land lying and being within the total perimeter of the Brookfield West subdivision (which subdivision is located within land lots 1146, 1159, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1229, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1288, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1294 and 1295 of the 2nd district, 2nd section of Fulton county, and land lots 114, 115, 185, 186, 251, 252, 314, 313, 253, 250, 187, 116, 183, 188 and 249 of the 1st district 2nd section of fulton county,) as depicted on Exhibit "b" attached hereto and incorpated herein by reference.
The concern is land lot 188 is not within the boundaries of the subdivision or reflected on the exhibit. | Not that it matters, but the structure of this description is a bit screwy. It would be more correct to say that the named "lots are within [the] subdivision"; or that the "lots compose the subdivision"; rather than saying "... Which subdivision is located within land lots ...". :D
How about Lots 183, 185, 186, and 187? Are they within the subdivision? If Lot 188 is not part of the Brookfield West Subdivision, what is it a part of? Because it would seem quite odd if there were consecutively named lots which are in the subdivision, but the next lot number in the series (188) is not a part.
And how was the Brookfield West Subdivision originally created, by a plat? Are you sure that Lot 188 wasn't a part of the subdivision in the past?
There appear to be at least seven Fulton Counties in the U.S. Which state are we talking about, by the way? | Brookfield was created in several phases. The other land lots are part of Brookfield but based on the exhibit referenced in this Quit Claim deed and other plats land lot 188 was never included. We are Georgia. | | | | New Member | |
Jul 3, 2011, 10:43 AM
| | | Comment on joypulv's post Quote:
Originally Posted by joypulv You have other owners on 2 or 3 sides, do you not? Many times that's what it boils down to, a major hashing of surrounding deeds and owners. To forestall great expense, you might want to contact them and discuss it, get a survey, etc. This isn't uncommon and courts sometimes cannot even determine who owns what and they divvy it up. How much land is unclear? Have you been to see it? Are there any boundary markers, fences, etc? | We have a survey and a Quit Claim Deed for this property. One of the neighbors is questioning our ownership | | | | Expert | |
Jul 4, 2011, 04:59 AM
| | | Quote:
Originally Posted by mvpmaggie Brookfield was created in several phases. The other land lots are part of Brookfield but based on the exhibit referenced in this Quit Claim deed and other plats land lot 188 was never included. We are Georgia. | Lot 188 was not in any of the phases? It was shown in none of the plats to any of the several phases? Quote:
Originally Posted by mvpmaggie ... One of the neighbors is questioning our ownership. | Unless that neighbor derived his or her title from whomever originally had title to lot 188, ignore him/her. That neighbor has no standing to question your ownership. If the neighbor does have a claim to lot 188, what has (s)he done to assert ownership all these years? If little or nothing, you have an adverse possession defense. | | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Getting a warranty deed if purchased with only a quit claim deed [ 1 Answers ]
My question is regarding a quit claim deed on a property. If a home is purchased very cheap but only has a quit claim deed not a warranty deed. Can a warranty deed be aquired? Or will it always be sold under quit claim deed. Any way to get a warranty deed for a property?
Thanks
Corrective Deed, New Quit Claim Deed, or See an Attorney? [ 4 Answers ]
I have a major problem with a quit claim deed that was done regarding my father's property. The intention was to put me in the deed but as an heir to the property, not as a co-owner or anything like that. So, a quit claim deed was filled out and recorded at the clerk of the circuit court. However,...
View more Real Estate Law questions Search
|
