Answered

At Westonci.ca, we connect you with the answers you need, thanks to our active and informed community. Experience the convenience of finding accurate answers to your questions from knowledgeable experts on our platform. Discover in-depth answers to your questions from a wide network of professionals on our user-friendly Q&A platform.

The Barretts and the McGregors are adjacent property owners. There is a fence, built in the late 1940's, separating their properties. The Barretts bought their property in 1973 from the Prescott family with a warranty deed recorded in the appropriate government office. The Prescott family had purchased the property from the Nunn family in 1945, also with a warranty deed recorded in the appropriate government office. The Barretts attempted to sell their property and a dispute arose regarding the boundaries of the property. The property in dispute consisted of 34.28 acres in a heavily wooded area behind the residences. The disputed property was on the McGregor's side of the fence, but the Barretts argued that the deeds clearly outline the disputed property as part of their land. To trace their ownership, the Barretts produced the 1945 deed which described the land in great detail, using metes and bounds, and clearly included the 34.28 acres. The Barretts also produced the 1973 deed which Included a general description using the words, "the tract described in the 1945 deed from Nunn to Prescott." In other words, in the 1973 Deed's general description, the Prescott family claimed to convey their entire parcel obtained through the 1945 Deed, including the 34.28 acres in dispute. In contrast, the 1973 Deed's metes-and-bounds description did not contain the 34.28 acres. Instead, the 34.28 acres were directly next to the property described by the metes and bounds in the 1973 deed. Who owned the property?
1. The Barretts claim the property belonged to them because of a legal transfer through (deed or adverse possession)
2. Both the 1945 and 1973 deeds were ( warranty or grant or quitclaim) deeds.
3. The 1945 deed (clearly or not clearly) conveyed the disputed tract from the Nunns to the Prescotts.
4. The (general or metes and bounds) description in the 1973 deed seemed to include the disputed acreage.
5. The (general or metes and bounds) description in the 1973 deed (clearly or clearly not) include the disputed acreage.
6. In this situation, the general description of the land being conveyed (did or did not) conflict with the metes and bounds description.
7. In this case, the description contained in the (metes and bounds or general description) will control and the Barretts (do or do not) own the property.
8. Because the land (was or was not) transferred to the Barretts, it would be owned by the (Barretts or Prescotts).

Sagot :

fichoh

Answer:

1.) deeds ; 2.) warranty ; 3.) Clearly ; 4.) General ; 5.) metes and bounds ; clearly not ; 6.) did ; 7) metes and bounds ; do not ; 8.) Prescott

Explanation:

In summary, the general description of 1973 did show the disputed acre of land, however, the metes and bound description which shows the land boundary does not include the acre in question. Since the metes and bounds will overrule the general description in this scenario, then the Barriers do not own the land and Ratner it belongs to the Prescott's.

Thanks for stopping by. We are committed to providing the best answers for all your questions. See you again soon. We hope our answers were useful. Return anytime for more information and answers to any other questions you have. We're here to help at Westonci.ca. Keep visiting for the best answers to your questions.