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.

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.

If the list of lots included in the text of the deed conflicts with lots included on the attached sketch, I would say that the text probably takes precedence. What it comes down to is the intent of the grantor. Extrinsic evidence, such as testimony of witnesses, may be relied upon also. There may be case law bearing on the question in your jurisdiction or elsewhere.

My deed came with an ancient description of the land boundaries that is all wrong (it shows much more land than I have) and I've been assured that it doesn't matter; what matters is what's on file in the deed office. It seems that I was the only one to actually examine it throughout 4 changes to the deed.

Even though your case is a little different, I don't see how you might hope to get away with more than you bought based on a mistake. Surely you know what you bought? The best case is that the deed will have to be refiled.

I'm not trying to get away with anything. We have done a title search trying to track a piece of land that we purchased. The problem is the Quit Claim Deed that is filed with the court records appears to be in conflict with itself. I'm just trying to understand what would take precendence if we were trying to determine if our property was part of this original Quit Claim deed.

I'm not trying to get away with anything. We have done a title search trying to track a piece of land that we purchased. The problem is the Quit Claim Deed that is filed with the court records appears to be in conflict with itself. I'm just trying to understand what would take precendence if we were trying to determine if our property was part of this original Quit Claim deed.

If this deed was executed decades ago, and there are no witnesses available, extrinsic evidence as to intent may be unavailable. You would have to go with the text over sketch preference I suggested earlier.

There is also, adverse possession, which would be a powerful tool for whomever actually possessed the questioned lot. In other words, if you have believed the lot was yours for the past 80 years, and occupied it, it probably is yours.

We would need to know the exact language in the text of the deed in order to give you an accurate answer.

For example, if the text in the deed says "Lots 1 through 10 as shown on the Tax Map of the Town of _____ and also as shown on the attached Exhibit A" then the text of the deed would take precedence over the drawing.

But if the text in the deed says "Lots 1 through 10 as shown on the attached Exhibit A" and the drawing only shows 1 through 9, then you have a problem.

Please give us the exact language in the deed.

We would need to know the exact language in the text of the deed in order to give you an accurate answer.

For example, if the text in the deed says "Lots 1 through 10 as shown on the Tax Map of the Town of _____ and also as shown on the attached Exhibit A" then the text of the deed would take precedence over the drawing.

But if the text in the deed says "Lots 1 through 10 as shown on the attached Exhibit A" and the drawing only shows 1 through 9, then you have a problem.

Please give us the exact language in the deed.

Agreed. In other words, in the first example, the drawing is only an illustration or aid to what is said in the text. In the second example, the attachment would be a sort-of unofficial plat. But, since there in effect any evidence of the geometry of the missing lot, it would be a problem indeed.

In places with which I'm familiar, it's against the law to subdivide land in this manner. But of course they did all sorts of slipshod things back when land was worth ten cents per acre.

We have owned the property since '93 and have a Quit claim deed.

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?

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.

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.

Thanks

That was my interpretation also. Now waiting for an official title search to see what it says

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?

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



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.

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.

We have a survey and a Quit Claim Deed for this property. One of the neighbors is questioning our ownership

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?


... 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.