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).