The Wrong Plat Book, the Absent Strip, and the Affidavit of Correction
Your research on a tract described as 'Lot 7, Block 2, Sunset Hills Subdivision, as shown on plat recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 14, Chancery Clerk's Office' produces four findings. First, Plat Book 6, Page 14 is a 1971 replat of a different subdivision three miles away. Second, the Sunset Hills plat matching the lot-and-block layout and the 0.41-acre area is filed as Plat Cabinet 2, Slide 8, recorded in 1962. Third, a 1974 survey by a now-deceased surveyor, found in the tax assessor's file but not in the deed records, shows Lot 7 with a 12-ft strip added along the north line; no deed in the chain mentions the strip. Fourth, in 1995 a prior owner recorded an 'Affidavit of Correction' changing a 110.00-ft call in the deed to 122.00 ft, reciting that the strip 'was always intended.' The current owner has mowed to the 122-ft line, but the fence is at 118 ft.
1. Which documents control the boundary of record, and what is the legal effect of the 1995 affidavit?
Read the worked answer
The deed controls between the parties, and because it incorporates the plat by reference, the plat is part of the description. A wrong book and page does not automatically void the call: where the description as a whole - subdivision name, lot, block, acreage - identifies one plat with reasonable certainty, the erroneous recording reference is treated as surplusage and the identified plat controls. Here the 1962 plat in Plat Cabinet 2, Slide 8 is clearly the intended plat, and the misreference should be documented in your report rather than used as an excuse to survey something else.
The affidavit is not a conveyance. An affidavit of correction executed by a prior owner does not convey land, does not move a boundary, and cannot supply what the deed omits. Assuming the affiant was a layperson with no ownership interest in the strip, the document may carry slight evidentiary weight as a statement of the affiant's understanding or reputation in the neighborhood, but it does not enlarge Lot 7. To get the strip, the chain would need a deed from whoever owned it, or a decree, or proof of adverse possession.
On the adverse possession theory, the fence matters. The owner claims to 122 ft but occupies only to 118 ft. That leaves 4 ft of the claimed strip neither enclosed nor actually possessed, which undermines the 'actual and exclusive possession' element for that portion - a classic exam trap. Verify the current Mississippi statute period and elements before you opine.
2. Outline the research you would perform to resolve the plat reference and to determine whether the 12-ft strip was ever conveyed.
Read the worked answer
Work the chain both directions and across all indexes:
- Grantor-grantor and grantee-grantee indexes on Lot 7, Block 2, and on the subdivision name, from the present deed back to a common grantor - ideally to the original government survey/patent - looking for any instrument touching the strip.
- Plat and map indexes in the chancery clerk's office: the original 1962 plat, any corrected or amended plat, and the instrument that approved the subdivision. Check the Board of Supervisors minutes for plat approval and any subsequent vacation.
- Consider whether the strip is a vacated street or alley. A 12-ft strip along a lot line with no deed history is very often a vacated right-of-way, which reverts to abutting owners by operation of law. If so, the strip may already belong to Lot 7 without any deed - this is the most likely innocent explanation and must be checked first.
- Common grantor search. If the strip was retained by the subdivider, look for a later deed or a quitclaim conveying it to a predecessor of the current owner, or to someone else.
- Ancillary records: tax assessor's parcel map and rolls (who is assessed for the strip), the 1974 surveyor's field notes and any monuments he set, and the chancery court dockets for quiet-title or boundary litigation.
- Current owner's documents: title policy, prior surveys, the 1995 affiant's deed into title.
3. How do you treat the 1974 survey and the tax assessor's file in your report and on the plat?
Read the worked answer
Both are evidence, not records of title, and your report should rank them accordingly.
The 1974 survey is unrecorded, so it gives no constructive notice and conveys nothing. It is potentially valuable evidence: it records what a surveyor found on the ground in 1974, may describe monuments now destroyed, and may support an inference about the location of the strip. Use it as corroboration, cite it as an unrecorded source with the file location, and if the surveyor set corners, search for them. Do not adopt its line merely because it is a survey - a 1974 plat is one surveyor's opinion, and it appears to show a strip that no deed conveys.
The tax assessor's file is an administrative record maintained for taxation. Assessed acreage, parcel maps, and tax billing are not conveyances and cannot establish a boundary. Their real value is evidentiary: who listed the strip, whether the owner paid taxes on it (relevant to some possession statutes), and what the assessor's field notes show.
In the plat legend and report, separate 'Boundary of Record' (deed plus 1962 plat), 'Evidences of Occupation' (fence at 118 ft, mowing to 122 ft), and 'Documents Reviewed but Not of Record' (1974 survey, assessor's file, 1995 affidavit). Never annotate a recorded plat with a line you cannot support.