Color of Title

[Riggs]

The current occupants have a deed that accurately describes landmarks (on federal land) defining a portion of their presumed boundary. All county survey and tax lot maps visually match the legal description in the deed. However, if you plot out the legal description from the deed the parcel is located 242' to the south. According to the county surveyor, there is a North-South bearing that is suspect. Keep in mind, none of these lands have been federally surveyed and the county has accepted private survey's.

 

[seniorjudge]

I said: Answer one question: Do the people have a deed or deeds with a legal description that covers federal land?

You answered: The current occupants have a deed that accurately describes landmarks (on federal land) defining a portion of their presumed boundary. All county survey and tax lot maps visually match the legal description in the deed. However, if you plot out the legal description from the deed the parcel is located 242' to the south. According to the county surveyor, there is a North-South bearing that is suspect. Keep in mind, none of these lands have been federally surveyed and the county has accepted private survey's (sic).

So the answer to my question, then, was, "No."

 

[Riggs]

As I said the deed accurately describes landmarks (on federal land) defining a portion of their presumed boundary. It appears the problem originated with the original survey notes and written legal description.

Are you telling me a claim of Color of Title is not valid if the land claimed is not described in a deed ? If so. See Ivie G. Berry, 25 IBLA 213, 214 (1976)

 

[seniorjudge]

Ivie G. Berry, 25 IBLA 213, 214 (1976). "A quitclaim deed in which the grantor grants all of his real property which he held of record in the county at the time of the deed constitutes color-of-title to a tract of Federal land in the county which the grantor held of record at the time of the deed, despite the lack of specific description of the land in the deed, where the claimants predecessor in interest actually had an interest of record in the subject tract."


Ah, thank you!

That case proves my point exactly!

 

[Riggs]

Are you saying that you agree, this is a potential valid color of title claim ?

 

[seniorjudge]

Are you saying that you agree, this is a potential valid color of title claim ?

You are exceptionally dense.

You have NO deed to ANY federal land; thus no color of title.

I don't care what monuments the deed uses in its legal description. I have written legal descriptions monumenting interstate highways; do you think that gives the people with the deed color-of-title to the highway?


Let me make this plain (for the hundredth time):

YOU DO NOT HAVE A DEED WITH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR FEDERAL LAND SO YOU HAVE NO CASE.

 

[Riggs]

So now you resort to insults.

You posted this: The Act of December 22, 1928 (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1068), as amended. Under the terms and provisions of this Act, a patent may be issued for a parcel of not more than 160 acres of public lands in instances where claim to the lands has been based on a written instrument containing defective evidence of title. The parcel must have been possessed in good faith by a claimant, his ancestors, or grantors for a period of more than 20 years.

And you agreed with this: A quitclaim deed in which the grantor grants all of his real property which he held of record in the county at the time of the deed constitutes color-of-title to a tract of Federal land in the county which the grantor held of record at the time of the deed, despite the lack of specific description of the land in the deed, where the claimants predecessor in interest actually had an interest of record in the subject tract."

Did you flunk out of law school and now are living out your fantasies on the internet. How sad. I feel sorry for the people that come here for advice and get your bull****. At least I try to help people in need. Obviously you don't care, you must be a lawyer.

 

[seniorjudge]

You posted this: The Act of December 22, 1928 (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1068), as amended. Under the terms and provisions of this Act, a patent may be issued for a parcel of not more than 160 acres of public lands in instances where claim to the lands has been based on a written instrument containing defective evidence of title. The parcel must have been possessed in good faith by a claimant, his ancestors, or grantors for a period of more than 20 years.

And you agreed with this: A quitclaim deed in which the grantor grants all of his real property which he held of record in the county at the time of the deed constitutes color-of-title to a tract of Federal land in the county which the grantor held of record at the time of the deed, despite the lack of specific description of the land in the deed, where the claimants predecessor in interest actually had an interest of record in the subject tract."


Yes, I still agree with both those postings and I also still agree that if you do not have a deed with a legal description on it which legally describes federal land, then you have no case.

Please post back with results when you find out I am correct.

 

[Riggs]

I will post the results even if you are wrong.

 

[seniorjudge]

I will post the results even if you are wrong.

I want you to post the results even if I am RIGHT!

Is the legal description too long to post? If not, post it so I can plat it.

Thanks....

BTW, this is a fascinating question.....