A few cases recently have given rise to this problem. Lawyer
acts for a buyer, and searches title including abutting land.
Client advises how title is to be taken. Lawyer does not realize or
notice that the client owns abutting land in the same name. The
deal closes, the titles merge and then, later, the client wants to
sell either the new parcel or the old one separately. Had the
lawyer advised the client of the merger, each property would have
remained separately transferable or mortgaged. As merged, neither
can be without the other and a consent to sever obtained. There are
no cases on a lawyer's liability on the duty to advise to
prevent merger but my suspicion is that a court would find that a
lawyer doing a search of abutting lands and knowing who owns the
abutting parcels and being told of the manner in which title on the
purchase is to be taken would be held to have a duty to advise the
client that taking title as instructed would result in a merger of
title
