I changed from legal description to property description. I think I saw the same seminar at a surveyors convention.
The pdf we print from the PC can be copied and pasted. HOWEVER, the pdf created from scanning the document from the copier can not be copied/pasted.
So, when you provide the Title Co. with a copy your Field Notes / Property Description, does that parcel now have a new description?
I have heard that the Lenders / Title Companies require (request) Field Notes / Property Description with every job, is that so? If that is true then it seems that they are potentially creating a new parcel each time a new set of Field Notes come in.
Can someone clarify this better?
Thanks.
Fascinating! (Not really, but I couldn't think of anything else to say...). So, what do you call your "field notes" (the records kept by the field survey crew)?
that does it also...
you are still traceable (the guilty party )to the description
there was a "wink" in there...
...guilty party 😉 "
that's pronounced "liars"
l-a-w-y-e-r-s ... liars
The intent should be clearly explained in the field note description. For example "All that certain 4.95 acre tract of land, being that same tract of land described as 5.00 acres in a deed from Smith to Jones, recorded in Volume 100, Page 200, Deed Records, Such and Such County, Texas..."
If I tell you that what I'm describing in the following calls is the same tract as previously described, how is it a new tract? It's described differently, but it's the same tract.
Remember, bearings and distances DO NOT DEFINE BOUNDARIES, except as a last resort. Intent (i.e. "being the same tract"), Jr./Sr. rights (i.e. "with the West line of the Hayes tract...") and monuments (i.e. "to a 2 inch iron pipe found on the East bank of a creek") all come before the direction and distance. IF YOU AREN'T SPELLING OUT INTENT, JR/SR RIGHTS AND MONUMENTS YOU AREN'T SURVEYING. whew, sorry this is becoming a pet peeve.
In Texas, many of the out of State lenders and title companies piss and moan over "new descriptions" out of ignorance. Like Andy said, we're different here, I suppose.
E-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g gets a new description even if only a few months old.
:good:
new description same land.
We call those field notes too.
Like Billy Joel said, we didn't start the fire.
It's an example of why seminar urban legends frustrate me so much.
"Field Notes"=legal description and "plat"=map have a long history of usage in Texas surveying and comes from the General Land Office when the legal was probably written in the field in a tent.
The GLO is the oldest department of state government dating back to early post revolution when we were independent. I used to struggle with it but now it makes sense. I have incorporated field notes, plat, survey plat and subdivision plat into my lexicon.
:good:
> Let's just call them "Property Descriptions"
Well, considering that land surveyors describe land and do not insure real property estates, I'm quite careful to leave the term "property" out of most of the documents and reports I prepare to describe survey results.
That is, I'm describing the boundaries of a certain tract of land described in some instrument of writing purporting to convey some real property estate in the land, but I'm definitely not warranting the title to that estate.
The usage that makes sense to me is "written description" as opposed to a description by reference to a map or prior conveyance. However, what is described is fundamentally land, not the property rights that may exist in that land, which are only set forth by reference to some instrument of record.
I may describe "that certain 2400 acre tract of land conveyed by James Perry to Ranald Mackenzie as described in Warranty Deed dated March 2, 1953 recorded in Book 2504 at Page 63 of the Travis County Deed Records", but "as described" is the key element. I would never describe "that certain property conveyed by James Perry to Ranald Mackenzie by Warranty Deed dated March 2, 1953 recorded in Book 2504 at Page 63 TCDR" because at the face of it the surveyor is offering some assurances as to the existence and nature of the property estate that the deed purported to convey.
In particular, since "property" implies the whole bundle of sticks, rights and servitudes, if you certify a map of a "property" that doesn't show all of the easements to which the land in which the real property estate exists is subject, you've in effect offered to help some title insurer pay a claim arising from damages resulting from their research failing to disclose the existence of those easements.
A property description has three parts
1 Preamble to state what tract or parcel of land is being described
2 Metes and Bounds Description
3 Certification with Signature and Seal
When a deed is prepared there may be more real property involved in the transaction and that would be mentioned in another section of the deed.
Many deeds convey an undivided interest and still they contain the description to the whole enchilada.
Once we turn our work over to a client, attorney or title company, we have no control where, how or what for it will be used.
I've completed some very good surveys that turned up in some botched and incomplete deeds that did not spell out the intent of the seller.
We are only wrong if what we say is not what something actually is.
You may have something with the term "written description" for a better name by purpose.
Today's descriptions hardly compare to true Field Notes written in camp and being rewritten a time or two before making their way to Austin during the 1800s.
> A property description has three parts
>
> 1 Preamble to state what tract or parcel of land is being described
>
> 2 Metes and Bounds Description
>
> 3 Certification with Signature and Seal
That is a land description. The property is something that attaches to that land that I don't think you want to be guaranteeing the nature of.
It may seem to be slicing the bologna a bit thin, but there is a large difference between describing land subject to some real property estate (that someone else is on the hook for guaranteeing) and describing the real property estate.
If I were in the title insurance business, I'd love for all of the surveyors who submitted surveys in connection with closings to guarantee that their maps correctly depicted the properties. It would open that many more wallets to pay the claims resulting from sloppy research and other causes.
That is interesting... I would not expect such diverse things to have the same name.
Bull-oney or more urban legends in surveying
>… it's just the tradition. we all shy away from calling it a "legal description". I guess one of the Ted Madson seminar types blew through a years ago and convinced us all we were practicing law without a license if we used that term. (just guessing).
> I changed from legal description to property description. I think I saw the same seminar at a surveyors convention
> Let's just call them "Property Descriptions"
This is where many of the “urban legends of surveying” come from: “I think I may have heard it from someone” or “that’s how I was taught many years ago”.
For a profession that is supposed to be good at digging for facts, we sure seem to jump all over many “ideas” and “theories” that we haven’t found any factual or legal basis of support.
> That's why I won't eat at Legal Seafood or use legal pads.
Thanks Larry, that’s funny, I don’t care who you are……
Yep, I’m burning all my legal pads tonight, before I get accused of practicing law.
> Well, considering that land surveyors describe land and do not insure real property estates, I'm quite careful to leave the term "property" out of most of the documents and reports I prepare to describe survey results.
> That is, I'm describing the boundaries of a certain tract of land described in some instrument of writing purporting to convey some real property estate in the land, but I'm definitely not warranting the title to that estate.
Really? A surveyor (or anyone else apparently) merely using the word “property” is now somehow magically insuring real property estates and/or title? I’m sure you have many authoritative sources for such a claim, well, hopefully at least something better than “that’s what I believe” or “golly gee, I think I heard that from someone”?
Maybe things are really different in Texas. Do the title companies in Texas save boat loads of paper & ink by merely using the word “property” to express the warranties they provide instead of scores of pages of “legalese” precisely defining what they are insuring? I’d like to see an example if you have one.
Maybe if you were in the title insurance business you could simply require all surveyors to use the word “property” somewhere on their plats or in their written land descriptions, then you could really rake it in, as all the liabilities and warranties would be made by the ignorant surveyors instead of you.
Hey, I may be on to something here. I might just save a “legal” pad or two, hide them in the closet until I’m ready to retire, then move to Texas and start a title company. Sure sounds like easy money to me.
Land vs. Property
> > Well, considering that land surveyors describe land and do not insure real property estates, I'm quite careful to leave the term "property" out of most of the documents and reports I prepare to describe survey results.
> > That is, I'm describing the boundaries of a certain tract of land described in some instrument of writing purporting to convey some real property estate in the land, but I'm definitely not warranting the title to that estate.
>
> Really? A surveyor (or anyone else apparently) merely using the word “property” is now somehow magically insuring real property estates and/or title?
A surveyor who certifies that a map truly and correctly represents a "property" while omitting the easements and other servitudes to which the property is subject has in effect offered the professional opinion that no such easements or servitudes exist. Much smarter to give a truthful certificate, i.e. that the map represents a certain tract of land and leave the title insurer on the hook for the estates that exist within that land? Most surveyors mean "land" when they use the word "property", so why not be direct?