LandInvestors.com Forums **Ask A Question** Exceptions in vesting deed – Yavapai County

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #15671

    Joe Snustad
    Participant
    Post count: 38

    Hey LA members. I have an offer accepted on a parcel in Yavapai County. This is my first time dealing in this county and I’m not sure what’s common what’s out of the ordinary. I know this is extremely boring legal stuff, but could someone provide some insight on the following? There are 4 “exception” lines in the vesting deed shown below. For those who’ve worked in yavapai, are these common boilerplate exceptions to find in deeds? This is for a 10 Acre property just south of I-40 between Seligman and Ash Fork.

    EXCEPTING the water holes as conveyed by Deed recorded on February 8, 1977, in
    Book 1057 of Official Records, Pages 404 to 410, Yavapai County, Arizona.

    AND EXCEPTING a non-exclusive right of way and easement for ingress and egress,for
    roadway and public utility purposes on, over,along and across all easements shown on
    the recorded Result of Survey as set forth here in above,which non-exclusive right of way
    and easement for roadway and public utility purposes shall be appurtenant to all lands
    formerly,presently or hereafter owned by Grantor in Townships 19,20, 21 and 22 North,
    Ranges 1,2, 3 and 4 West of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Yavapai and
    Coconino Counties,State of Arizona, and shall run with the title to such land formerly,
    presently or here after owned by Grantor, or any part or portion thereof.

    AND EXCEPTING an undivided fifty percent (50%) interest in and to all minerals of
    every kind and character,inclusive of,but not limited to gas,oil and other hydrocarbon
    substances,uranium and any and all other fissionable materials and rights.

    AND EXCEPTING all range use and grazing rights,with the right to use and possession
    of said Parcel for pasturage and grazing purposes,until the Grantee,his heirs or assigns,
    shall enclose all of said Parcel by erecting a good and substantial fence along the inside
    lines of the roadway and public utility easement above described.

Viewing 10 replies - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • Anwar Montgomery
    Participant
    Post count: 97
    Pro

    Joe, my first thought is that I’d call the county (I would think maybe planning and zoning?) and tell them I’m looking at purchasing a property and wanted to get clear on the exceptions on the deed. If they are like ‘oh no, that’s legal advice’, then I’d look at the deal and see if there is enough meat on the bone to go through title or an attorney.

    But man, I wish I could help with all these deed questions but I am so underqualified. If it seems remotely complicated and there’s not enough on the bone to go through escrow or an attorney, I just put it at the bottom of the pile and go to the next deal. Circle back around if nothing else gets going.

    Mike Marshall
    Participant
    Post count: 33
    ProAdvanced

    Joe-

    I’ve worked in a planning and zoning department over a decade and in that time I can tell you that the county will likely not comment on deed restrictions. These are very different than zoning and subdivision regulations enforced by the county in this case. In my experience in comes down to understanding who the easement right is granted to and the likliehood of them enforcing that easement right. Jack and Jill have discussed the mineral right issue before so I’m sure you can find that info. In my opinion, the grazing right is eliminated once the property is fenced in by the grantee. Basically, if you or your buyer wants to prevent grazing, a fence could be built. The access and utility easement is common especially in subdivided lots which I believe this is. The water hole easement is more interesting and may warrant more research. I’d always keep in mind that it comes down to what someone’s intended use of the property is as well. Hope that gives some context.

    Joe Snustad
    Participant
    Post count: 38
    Pro

    Hey guys. Thanks for your thoughts. Ya, I think the only one that I have concern with is the first one discussing the water holes. I’m just going to get that book and pages as described and see what it says and go from there.

    That being said, my 3rd mailer (1st 2 were basically flops) has hit the doorsteps and my phone’s been going nuts. Lots of accepted offers(this being one of them), and I hope to have a success story within a couple months here. Currently compiling a list of those who want to sell so I can buy only the A-squad for my first few purchases…

    Luke Smith
    Moderator
    Post count: 1262
    ProAdvanced

    This sounds like restrictions coming down from some big Rance in the area this used to be part of. If you did like a 50 year title search on it and followed the chain of title grantee to grantee I’m sure you would see the property grow into that old ranch where the water holes are located. I doubt they are on your land if they are better let the ranchers run their cattle to them with out fencing them off. If you went way back in title then followed the grantors back I bet you would see split after split until you get down to the 10 acres you are looking at. Somewhere along the way each easement and mineral rights would come up until you have today’s list of things.

    Really watch the little stuff in yavapai in my experience they are the hardest recorders and assessors to get paperwork through in AZ. Make sure all the titles are in the right place, margins are all right, your 10$ for consideration is on there. Notary title is Notary Public. Dates are all in order tax form is fully completed etc. Just really polish the paperwork for that county.

    Darald (@AggieLand)
    Participant
    Post count: 172
    Pro

    @jsnustad congratulations on getting some traction on this 3rd mailer!

    Joe Snustad
    Participant
    Post count: 38
    Pro

    Thanks @aggieland

    Good thoughts Luke, this does make sense. Thanks for your input like always!

    Kyria Baker
    Participant
    Post count: 138
    Pro

    @jsnustad Did you end up buying this property? I have a couple of similar exception clauses in west Texas that I’m trying to figure out.
    Do I leave it in, or remove it? The original clause says “GRANTOR” and I can’t put that, since my deed will be two owners removed from that first grantor. I was hoping you went through with this one, Joe, so I would know what to do.

    Joe Snustad
    Participant
    Post count: 38
    Pro

    @kyria I actually had some better deals come through the door, so I’m holding off on this one until later. I still might come back to it… Sorry that doesn’t help.

    What I will be doing though is merely Luke’s suggestion. Following the title back far enough to see where these restrictions came into place. And leave them as standing restrictions.

    Kyria Baker
    Participant
    Post count: 138
    Pro

    Rats. Okay, thanks, Joe!

    Luke Smith
    Moderator
    Post count: 1262
    ProAdvanced

    Why not just leave them in? Even if the grantor is many deeds ago you are still saying it’s not going to the grantee.

    It’s not yours to grant.

    Or change it to some cover all statement like “subject to prior restrictions”

Viewing 10 replies - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.