Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › Deed Conflict –
-
Kent McMillan, post: 413373, member: 3 wrote: The following, if present in a description of rural Texas land, are nearly always a red flag that serious research will be needed.
– Description in bearings to nearest 1/4 degree,
– Distances in yards or steps,
– Distances to nearest vara or 1/2 vara,
– Description that appears to have been written by non-surveyor,
– Call for original land grant line with no mention of any tie to any original corner,
– Call for meanders of highly irregular wire fence as being some line “as fenced and used on the ground” or similar phrase,
– Calls for courses and distances with no indication that survey was made,
– Differing monument descriptions at nominally the same corners of adjoining properties with no explanation in the record,
– Calls for fence along State highway right-of-way,
– Calls for land to consist of parts of more than one land grant,
– Reference to subdivision map not of record, and
– A bunch of other things.You forgot “call for the gradient boundary.”
-
Dave Karoly, post: 413380, member: 94 wrote: You forgot “call for the gradient boundary.”
That would more generally be :
– any call for a boundary at or near the shore or bed of a lake, river, stream, or branch.
-
James Flemming has my vote for best survey quote this month:
“Lose money. It’s much cheaper than losing your reputation”
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose -
As most everyone have written, you need to research it back to the original description. That said, if the abutter is calling for the creek, then I’d suspect that your parcel boundary is also the creek (CL), since no one’s usually conveying a parcel and retaining a strip of half a creek width.
I wouldn’t be overly concerned with the overlap, if I’m understanding you correctly that this is the stream boundary, as streams move, and the boundary moves with it, obviously.
Makes me wonder why someone’s putting B-D on the stream, since it is a movable boundary. I usually set a monument on the bank, give a +/- to the CL, and then a tie line to the other intersecting line, for closure.
-
JPH, post: 413410, member: 6636 wrote: As most everyone have written, you need to research it back to the original description. That said, if the abutter is calling for the creek, then I’d suspect that your parcel boundary is also the creek (CL), since no one’s usually conveying a parcel and retaining a strip of half a creek width.
I wouldn’t be overly concerned with the overlap, if I’m understanding you correctly that this is the stream boundary, as streams move, and the boundary moves with it, obviously.
Makes me wonder why someone’s putting B-D on the stream, since it is a movable boundary. I usually set a monument on the bank, give a +/- to the CL, and then a tie line to the other intersecting line, for closure.
If you don’t meander the stream, how the hell do you calculate the acreage?!?!?!?!?! And yes, you better put the meanders in the description too! This helps lots of ways. One, it lets folks check your math; Two, it provides an accurate acreage along a meander line; Three, it lets folks in the future see the progression of the movement of the stream.
I recently did a big job and the deed has a BIG bust in it, but they meandered the creek. So did I and my meanders fit the 1954 meanders VERY WELL. Well enough I was able to isolate the bust.
But, like I said above, I knew, based on a deed sketch and review of all of the deeds (mine and the adjoiner) that this existed and had a plan on how to combat it. I also knew that the bust was going to equate to an approximate 60 acre discrepancy (not in my clients favor) on this tract. I knew ALL that before I hit the ground. Knowledge is power folks and research begets knowledge.
-
Kris Morgan, post: 413413, member: 29 wrote: If you don’t meander the stream, how the hell do you calculate the acreage?!?!?!?!?! And yes, you better put the meanders in the description too! This helps lots of ways. One, it lets folks check your math; Two, it provides an accurate acreage along a meander line; Three, it lets folks in the future see the progression of the movement of the stream.
I recently did a big job and the deed has a BIG bust in it, but they meandered the creek. So did I and my meanders fit the 1954 meanders VERY WELL. Well enough I was able to isolate the bust.
But, like I said above, I knew, based on a deed sketch and review of all of the deeds (mine and the adjoiner) that this existed and had a plan on how to combat it. I also knew that the bust was going to equate to an approximate 60 acre discrepancy (not in my clients favor) on this tract. I knew ALL that before I hit the ground. Knowledge is power folks and research begets knowledge.
I shoot the stream and that’s kind of how the hell I calculate the area. No reason those B-D need to be on the final plan.
Must be different customs, in the NE, or at least the parts I work, no one’s “meandering” a stream. Usually a +/- length of the stream is on the plan and in the description. As said, a tie line is used to close the math.
-
Kris Morgan, post: 413413, member: 29 wrote: If you don’t meander the stream, how the hell do you calculate the acreage?!?!?!?!?! And yes, you better put the meanders in the description too! This helps lots of ways. One, it lets folks check your math; Two, it provides an accurate acreage along a meander line; Three, it lets folks in the future see the progression of the movement of the stream.
I recently did a big job and the deed has a BIG bust in it, but they meandered the creek. So did I and my meanders fit the 1954 meanders VERY WELL. Well enough I was able to isolate the bust.
But, like I said above, I knew, based on a deed sketch and review of all of the deeds (mine and the adjoiner) that this existed and had a plan on how to combat it. I also knew that the bust was going to equate to an approximate 60 acre discrepancy (not in my clients favor) on this tract. I knew ALL that before I hit the ground. Knowledge is power folks and research begets knowledge.
Hahaha. There’s, of course, the other end of it: bout a year ago I followed some kind soul who generously decided to set PKs and spindles at every 10″+ deflection (about every 45′) down a mile of creekbed…
-
Kent McMillan, post: 413373, member: 3 wrote: – A bunch of other things.
Boy aint that the truth! :clink:
-
If you learn anything from this experience it is: Have a well worded contract that covers issues such as this. There is no reason to complete more work than you were contracted to complete. On the flip side, you need to ensure your contract protects you and has allowances for you to complete the work expected and required of a professional surveyor.
-
JPH, post: 413414, member: 6636 wrote: I shoot the stream and that’s kind of how the hell I calculate the area. No reason those B-D need to be on the final plan.
Must be different customs, in the NE, or at least the parts I work, no one’s “meandering” a stream. Usually a +/- length of the stream is on the plan and in the description. As said, a tie line is used to close the math.
That’s utter BS and doesn’t help long term seeing the progression of a waterway.
-
Kris Morgan, post: 413450, member: 29 wrote: That’s utter BS and doesn’t help long term seeing the progression of a waterway.
Come on, Kris, it’s not BS. You may not like it, and it may not be how you do your thing in Texas, but it’s how it’s done in the north, seriously, I’m not kidding you. No reason to get angry about it, man.
If the point of the survey is to show the, “progression of a waterway”, then, sure I’d show it. But a normal boundary survey, no.
-
JPH, post: 413453, member: 6636 wrote: Come on, Kris, it’s not BS. You may not like it, and it may not be how you do your thing in Texas, but it’s how it’s done in the north, seriously, I’m not kidding you. No reason to get angry about it, man.
If the point of the survey is to show the, “progression of a waterway”, then, sure I’d show it. But a normal boundary survey, no.
JPH, That is allow how i do show streams when surverying adjacent to them and it’s how most in this area do it as well.
-
JPH, post: 413453, member: 6636 wrote: Come on, Kris, it’s not BS. You may not like it, and it may not be how you do your thing in Texas, but it’s how it’s done in the north, seriously, I’m not kidding you. No reason to get angry about it, man.
If the point of the survey is to show the, “progression of a waterway”, then, sure I’d show it. But a normal boundary survey, no.
Just some personal preference I think it’s good to have the bearings and distances on the stream on the survey plat, because it shows where the stream is in that “snapshot in time”. but I am torn on showing the bearings on a legal description. To me, you want the legal elements of the description to emphasize the (constantly changing) waterway as being the boundary. (of course using “to” and “along” type language helps the legal presumption that the bearings and distances are secondary to the stream)
The problem with giving a general direction of the stream and an approximate distance isn’t like by a lot of government agencies like Counties. The assessor wants a checkable area
-
In this case there seems to be a problem, perhaps only in the eye of a surveyor, but still a problem.
Step aside and say “this is how we do it” if you choose.
Another way is to offer to provide additional services (more $$$) and offer to assist fixing it. Boundary Agreements work well for most, quiet title as a last resort. One way of pulling a project out of the red, and enjoyable work too. -
A situation like this is how I learned the importance of talking to the neighbors. I was surveying a 2 acre tract that had been cut off of a 10 acre tract. The 10 acre tract was on both sides of a creek. The two acres was the property on the north side of the creek and the metes and bounds in the deed roughly followed the creek. However, there was no mention of the creek in the deed and there was a very rudimentary plat that was included with the deed that did not show the creek at all. It wasn’t until I spoke to the 81 year old neighbor who told me “I was drinkin a beer with Jim and Bob when Bob convinced Jim to sell him that two acres. They agreed they would split the property at the center of the creek” that I had the evidence I needed to be sure.
Don’t be afraid to talk to the neighbors, especially the older ones.
-
WA-ID Surveyor, post: 413461, member: 6294 wrote: JPH, That is allow how i do show streams when surverying adjacent to them and it’s how most in this area do it as well.
I agree with you 100% JPH. In the NE it is most common to show a tie line and the meander with a plus or minus distance. I would hesitate to show B/D along stream. I can just envision one of our future attorneys writing a deed reciting the B/D and dropping the reference to the center of the stream leading to a future owner thinking the boundary is the B/D instead of the stream. Not to mention the additional cost of locating the the stream.
Hackel
-
Lots of good stuff in this discussion.
If nothing else I would suggest fleshing this one out as a learning experience.
Sure – if the majority of your work is modern subdivisions and modern development you will not likely see issues like this often.
In many areas, issues like these are probably not uncommon. -
WA-ID Surveyor, post: 413461, member: 6294 wrote: JPH, That is allow how i do show streams when surverying adjacent to them and it’s how most in this area do it as well.
Cool. Wait, which method is how you do it – put B-D on the stream meanderings or use a +/- length with a tie line?
-
JPH, post: 413488, member: 6636 wrote: Cool. Wait, which method is how you do it – put B-D on the stream meanderings or use a +/- length with a tie line?
+/- length with a tie line of course. 🙂
-
Meander the creek and never, ever think that it has not changed location.
Research back to the first deed calling a creek the boundary as some scriveners may have changed words.
Tie all banks, center of stream and depth from top of bank.
Log in to reply.