The south line of lot "A" has a bearing of S 89?ø08' W. Is the northerly 100' of lot "A" calculated by going southerly along the east and west lines, from the NE and NW corners, respectively?
The south line of the "northerly 100' of Lot A" is parallel to and 100 feet, measured perpendicular, southerly of the north line of said Lot A. With those crazy angles that may measure nearly 118'-120' down those sidelines, as it is drawn.
Any interpretation that favors the grantee is the best.
The grantor is supposed to know better.
I guess perpendicular is the magic word. I think the sidelines are parallel to each other. I was thinking if they weren't, calculating the northerly 100' might be done differently. What if the north line had a change of direction in it, with the apex on the north side?
There are several unknowns here. Who prepared the description? Err against the grantor is nor written in stone and can be 'err against the preparer of the description'. The actions of the owners may reveal a different intent.
The line would usually be 100 feet perpendicular distance south of the north boundary, but this is not a math test. Reading deeds in a vacuum will bite you hard. Gather the evidence before making a decision or you risk being (very) wrong.
If you are in a platted subdivision and this is a first time deal for the parcel do what Norman says and don't complicate things. ?????ÿ
I was just trying to understand a generally accepted standard for lessing out portions of a lot. My friend and I have been discussing the particulars involved. We are trying to learn how things are done. I will attach a copy of the resubdivision for you.
Are you trying to say the northerly 100' might be more or less, depending upon the deeds?
However you determine the bearing for the North line of Parcel "A" the N 100' of it is as Norman stated. A line 100' drawn South of and perpendicular to the North line. The East and West lines are then intersected using the bearing of the North line and their determined bearings.
I grew up in Daytona and know the area well. You are in Ormond on the Beachside in what was (and presumably still is) a nice neighborhood.
J. J. Matejka was a well known engineer and surveyor in the area. ?????ÿ
In the aerial photo it looks like the south fence could be 10' north of the south fences of the lots going east making it 100 feet at right angles.
I am saying the snippet from the deed is not sufficient to place the description on the ground. It certainly can't be declared to be in any location without developing all relevant evidence.?ÿ
Good point. Thanks!
As others have stated, the general principle is ambiguities are interpreted in favor of the grantee in the absence of evidence of any contrary intent. Where a Deed which states a width the grantee would expect to receive that width unless the conduct of both parties to the contract show a contrary intention.
The parties to a written Deed contract may implement it in conformance with any interpretation to which it is reasonably susceptible. That would leave at least three possibilities: 1) measured at right angles, 2) measured along the sidelines, or 3) measured due south. The south line could be parallel to the street or due east-west but the two don't seem to be significantly different.
A review of the aerial photo appears to indicate the south possession line is parallel to the street and measured 100 feet south at right angles.
Quite frequently the intent has already been laid out by the original parties and is measured down the east and west lines because that is the way they understood it should be done.?ÿ They were not surveyors, but that is what they meant and so that is what they did.?ÿ In such cases, the surveyor, attempting to lay out what he/she has been taught to be correct, creates chaos.?ÿ This is especially bad when structures have been built in agreement with the intent of the original parties.
Another related issue is when the scrivener creates a paper tract described as being the east half of some existing tract.?ÿ The assumption is that there must also be a remainder tract that can be called the west half of the same existing tract.?ÿ The grantor and grantee went out and did something that they believed to be the half and half split line.?ÿ Eventually, some future owner learns that the adjoiner's tract is bigger than his tract by some amount.?ÿ Obviously, in his mind, he is not possessing HALF of the original, so hopes a surveyor will get him more land.?ÿ That is when the surveyor normally must explain the difference between half by description and half by area.?ÿ I have even encountered those in rural areas in PLSSia who are upset because the west half of the original tract is subject to a half mile of road r-o-w on the west and a quarter mile of road r-o-w on the south while the east half of the original tract is only subject to a quarter mile of road r-o-w on the south, thus the owner of the west half somehow got screwed out of his fair share of 'usable' land.
In the latter case, I had a situation many years ago where two feuding brothers inherited the southwest quarter of a section.?ÿ They had me survey the entire quarter, calculate the amount of area subject to road r-o-w and then establish a line and mutual descriptions that resulted in each one receiving the same amount of 'usable' area.?ÿ They then had quit claim deeds prepared to document this new line as the boundary and not the standard definition of east half/west half.?ÿ They wasted a lot of money on settling this issue, but the one brother was absolutely determined to accept no other solution.?ÿ The actual appraised value of each "half" did not come into consideration.?ÿ It was all about area.?ÿ Today, those tracts are owned by first cousins as the brothers are deceased.
I had a Survey where the east and west lines were not parallel. The original subdiders were brother and sister. The brother and brother-in-law measured the same amount down the east and west lines. Eventually that was the accepted resolution.
In our famous case of Bryant v. Blevins it appears the west half was sliced off as half a standard 10acre lot but the Lot was a bit larger because it is on the edge of the subdivision resulting in a slightly larger east half. The California Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision following a fence to that effect because no one knew why the fence got constructed there (outside of the obvious speculation). The dissenting opinion writer pointed out "half" is ambiguous and does not necessarily mean precisely half in a mathematical sense. It could simply be a way of saying west part and east part.
In the case of a road being on the side of one of the halves of the Lot the California Courts have ruled the presumption is the description references the usable area of the Lot meaning half exclusive of the R/W. As always these are rebuttable presumptions, not rules of property.
That is when the surveyor normally must explain the difference between half by description and half by area.
Interesting. If a lot was a perfect square oriented due north, there would be no difference between half by description and half by area? Just a thought.
You are correct.?ÿ But......................too many today would discover, by their overly precise measurements, that there is no perfect square oriented due north in the real world.?ÿ North suddenly is North 00 degrees 00 minutes 07 seconds West.?ÿ And 120 feet is now 119.995 feet.?ÿ Dumbasses have no conception of reality.
But, but, but, but, but................that's how the DC recorded it.?ÿ It can't be anything else because the DC said so.
When writing a legal description, it is always best to include cardinal directions when describing parts of a lot. Logical statement?
A Surveyor writing a description should make it unambiguous. For example, the north 100 feet of Lot A measured at right angles to the street.