I generally use the word, "Proposed", when preparing an easement plan for easements that don't exist yet. So I'll have, "Proposed Access and Utility Easement", within the plan.
A lawyer is asking me to remove, "Proposed". I know they're intending to record the deeds and plan at the same time. I guess my concern is that if papers don't pass for some reason, and the plan gets recorded, will people mistakenly think that these easements exist already?
Am I being concerned about nothing here?
I am dealing with one of those right now, except in reverse. The PLS did not note the easements were 'proposed' and the deal fell through. The owner is losing his mind over the easements on a recorded survey.
Explain your stance to the attorney and see if he gets it. If not, you don't want him as a client.
Am I being concerned about nothing here?
Absolutely not. Never remove "proposed" from anything until you have seen or possess recorded documents somewhere to back it up. 😎
Yea, what FL/GA said. They're either proposed or existing. Show me a filed easement and the word "proposed" gets removed.
We deal with this all the time when recording short plats, binding site plans, etc. It gets pretty screwy, because sometimes the county wants the easement to be dedicated by plat, other times they want a separate doc to be recorded at the same time. Do the same thing for a city in that county and they want the reverse...
On our maps we have a block of text reading "XXXXX Easement per AF No. ______________"
On the separate document they will have a block reading "as shown on plat/BSP/etc. recorded under AF No. ___________"
When the map/plat and the separate documents are taken for recording, the auditor assigns the numbers at that time, and they are simply written in the blanks then. No recording, no reference.
I think it's weird. But it's common practice around here.