Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › Okie Legals
- Posted by: MightyMoe
Title companies ….
When you reference witness corners along a line,,,,,that really gets them going.
In my experience, mineral surveys “really get them going,” too, also.
I write descriptions like that all the time (Oklahoma style). I don’t get too specific (KISS), afterall bearing and distance is evidence to the corner, it’s not the corner. The problem may be that Texas is a metes and bounds state with traditions of natural monuments while Oklahoma is a PLSS state with section lines (“I don’t care how they do it in Texas…you’re not in Texas anymore.”)
- Posted by: True Corner
I write descriptions like that all the time (Oklahoma style). I don’t get too specific (KISS), afterall bearing and distance is evidence to the corner, it’s not the corner. The problem may be that Texas is a metes and bounds state with traditions of natural monuments while Oklahoma is a PLSS state with section lines (“I don’t care how they do it in Texas…you’re not in Texas anymore.”)
Sure, but not telling the retracing surveyor what the corner actually is exponentially increases the uncertainty, and the probability of two retracing surveyors coming to different conclusions goes through the roof.
They are asking for the very poor classic “metes WITHOUT bounds” description. These fit nicely into the paper records derived from an assumed perfect PLSS. No need to survey much, it’s just a bit of simple geometry. Anybody can do it. Why should a buyer paying half a million get more than a $10 description?
Where I work tying to a section corner in a description doesn’t always tie to any perpetuated monument or existing physical marker. They have been obliterated or maybe lost, usually replaced in a new and improved location by some hack that couldn’t look or didn’t know how to. But why describe what you used as the physical section monument or the parcel corners, you got the math to work from? The math is one step up from coordinates. Don’t waste paper, ink or bytes with these people that belong to a tradition that started out ignorant to proper ways and now culturally are tied to stupidity.
As you might determine this is one of the things I hate the most! I’ve had lots of complaining back from title companies, had them rewrite or totally hack some of my ??verbose? descriptions. In Utah we are proposing for a state law that anybody who writes a description must sign it for inclusion in the record, take responsibility. Might help some I hope, but will we be able to get it passed by the legislature?
Unless land surveyors have some good friends in the Utah legislature I dont think it will be easy, but there are other ways.
In Alaska the writting of land descriptions is included in the statutory definition of the practice of land surveying, so a an unlicensed title company employee would be practicing without a lisence.
I am not particularly good at educating title companies or lawyers. Ironically, case law has established that a property line is something that exists on the ground, not on a piece of paper. The new properties you describe are only pieces of paper with numbers on it, until you set your monuments, and THEN you have a piece of property. Case law understands fully that the science of measuring numbers lead to infinite positions on the ground, and pincushions. therefore, you are tasked with describing the lines on the ground, and the only way to insure that those lines are perpetuated in the future is to set monuments and describe those in the LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
I would prefer to send my legal as you’ve written, utilizing the LEGAL task of describing the property lines as opposed to the TECHNICAL task of describing numbers in english words on a piece of paper. In the past, when being told by lay people to stamp my legals, assuming the liability, in the manner that THEY prescribe, I will do my best to at least attache my plat showing where I set my pins.
In one fairly recent case – I sent the legals to the lawyer as written by me (with monuments and an attached plat), and said: Here you go – I’ve done my job and delivered my work according to the standards that regulate my license. YOU can do whatever you want with these. Just don’t put my name on them. (this risky tactic worked!, I got paid)
I cannot imagine putting state plane coordinates and other associated metadata on a deed. So long as it is able to be placed on the ground and meets the requirements for a proper description then do as the title company asks. Maybe record your survey and make reference to the survey for the more detailed and verbose descriptions. I would refrain from making a set of coordinates part of the deed. I am fine with it being on a plat as a point of reference but a deed is conferring title and it would seem you would give pedigree to a set of coordinates as opposed to the evidence on the ground.
I sort of agree with the title company here except to say monuments set should be called for in the legal (this is a problem in old circa 1900 legal descriptions here…missing calls for intended monuments).
The function of the legal description is to identify the subject matter of the grant. It is not the best place to record a boundary survey, that is outside its “wheelhouse.”
Not an Okey thing, it’s a R.O.W. thing. They don’t want the monuments or coordinates to be confused as controlling elements. In their suggested description, there are no possibility of conflict in the future. In case of a future dispute over the location of the section lines/title lines, there can be no argument that the description stops at some monument or coordinate.
Working on one right now where the R.O.W. misses the PL by about 7 feet. But the monuments set after the fact do not control, nor does the coordinate, and neither are mentioned in the description just in case this happens. Unfortunately, the utility company used the DOT coordinate in their subsequent description of an easement to relocate the poles, which could raise questions about their easement location, but I’m treating it as I do the R.O.W. description. Still, I wish that coordinate call was not in there as it is the most definite and easily located part of the description, which normally would have to be controlling. Should not be two clear as day intentions, that might in the future come into conflict, expressed in one deed.
On the other hand, it sounds like in your case a complete and thorough survey of the entire parent tract was done, which is not like a typical route survey that doesn’t necessarily find the true sidelines of all the parcels it travels through. But title company is probably just following “standard” right of way description practice.
- Posted by: Dave Karoly
I sort of agree with the title company here except to say monuments set should be called for in the legal (this is a problem in old circa 1900 legal descriptions here…missing calls for intended monuments).
The function of the legal description is to identify the subject matter of the grant. It is not the best place to record a boundary survey, that is outside its “wheelhouse.”
Dave,
You are speaking from a recording state perspective. In a non-recording state, like Oklahoma, often the only way to record a boundary survey in a way to ensure that it will be discovered by the next surveyor is in the deed.
I do agree with just-a-surveyor though, it may not be a good idea to put coordinates in the deed.
- Posted by: Duane Frymire
Not an Okey thing, it’s a R.O.W. thing. They don’t want the monuments or coordinates to be confused as controlling elements. In their suggested description, there are no possibility of conflict in the future. In case of a future dispute over the location of the section lines/title lines, there can be no argument that the description stops at some monument or coordinate.
Working on one right now where the R.O.W. misses the PL by about 7 feet. But the monuments set after the fact do not control, nor does the coordinate, and neither are mentioned in the description just in case this happens. Unfortunately, the utility company used the DOT coordinate in their subsequent description of an easement to relocate the poles, which could raise questions about their easement location, but I’m treating it as I do the R.O.W. description. Still, I wish that coordinate call was not in there as it is the most definite and easily located part of the description, which normally would have to be controlling. Should not be two clear as day intentions, that might in the future come into conflict, expressed in one deed.
On the other hand, it sounds like in your case a complete and thorough survey of the entire parent tract was done, which is not like a typical route survey that doesn’t necessarily find the true sidelines of all the parcels it travels through. But title company is probably just following “standard” right of way description practice.
Lets not start this ROW monuments thing again. Some of your statements have been heavily disputed in a few very long threads here.
The TC example is okay except it fails to identify the lines it runs along. If the intention is to follow a 1/64th line then say so.
Where I have seen Land Surveyors fail is rigidly adhering to the theoretical location of that 1/64th corner when there is an established monument that has been there for decades.
If the description creates new lines with monuments then by all means call the monuments but if the lines are existing then calling set or found monuments could create a couple of problems, 1) calling a monument erroneously off the called for existing line and 2) a Deed that doesn’t involve the adjoiner does not affect their title or put them on notice.
State Societies should be agitating for a recording statute instead of promoting a practice of hitching your wagon onto someone else’s train. California’s first Statute was in 1892, 126 years ago.
- Posted by: aliquotPosted by: Duane Frymire
Not an Okey thing, it’s a R.O.W. thing. They don’t want the monuments or coordinates to be confused as controlling elements. In their suggested description, there are no possibility of conflict in the future. In case of a future dispute over the location of the section lines/title lines, there can be no argument that the description stops at some monument or coordinate.
Working on one right now where the R.O.W. misses the PL by about 7 feet. But the monuments set after the fact do not control, nor does the coordinate, and neither are mentioned in the description just in case this happens. Unfortunately, the utility company used the DOT coordinate in their subsequent description of an easement to relocate the poles, which could raise questions about their easement location, but I’m treating it as I do the R.O.W. description. Still, I wish that coordinate call was not in there as it is the most definite and easily located part of the description, which normally would have to be controlling. Should not be two clear as day intentions, that might in the future come into conflict, expressed in one deed.
On the other hand, it sounds like in your case a complete and thorough survey of the entire parent tract was done, which is not like a typical route survey that doesn’t necessarily find the true sidelines of all the parcels it travels through. But title company is probably just following “standard” right of way description practice.
Lets not start this ROW monuments thing again. Some of your statements have been heavily disputed in a few very long threads here.
The way the Westlaw Research Lawyers organized the law of boundaries made it a lot more understandable to me. Let??s say you have two boxes of rules, A and B. So you have rule A1 but you are in box B so it doesn??t apply to your situation.
The law of boundaries evolved to gradually transition from Deed rules of construction to establishment but not always. If it was easy anyone could do it. I get it, it??s easier to reject a whole class of evidence out of hand than consider the difficult questions.
- Posted by: Dave Karoly
State Societies should be agitating for a recording statute instead of promoting a practice of hitching your wagon onto someone else’s train. California’s first Statute was in 1892, 126 years ago.
Of course they should, but in the meantime OK surveyors need to deal with life without recording.
In Oklahoma many PLSS corners have multiple corner records filed that do not agree with each other, or even reference eachother, and provide no rational for the chosen position. Often the original GLO or BLM corner is also there, buried too deep for a $500 surveyor to afford to look for it. To make matters worse the corners are often described as being the corner of only one aliqout part (i.e. the NW corner of the SW1/4 instead of the 1/4 cor of secs. X and X). This gives the impression to land owners and even incompetent surveyors that the corners are not common.
Because of this, when creating a new boundary it is often crucial to describe the exact recovered monuments that were held to develop the metes part of the description. Otherwise a description that says, “From the NW corner of the NW1/4SW1/4 thence 100 feet south along the section line of X and X section”, needs to describe which two (or more) monuments were used to determine the section line. Otherwise three different surveyors can conclude 100 feet south is in three different places.
- Posted by: Dave Karoly
The law of boundaries evolved to gradually transition from Deed rules of construction to establishment but not always. If it was easy anyone could do it. I get it, it??s easier to reject a whole class of evidence out of hand than consider the difficult questions.
Who is rejecting a whole class of evidence?
Monuments not called for in a deed are evidence of the actions of the owners. Those actions may reveal intent or establish a boundary by operation of law. Rejecting them out of hand is as bad or worse than holding in the face of superior evidence.
Get the evidence in the record. That’s a huge part of our job…
Hey Dave,
Long time!!
I know what you mean by some surveyors marking monuments for one side only where in fact it should be common?
An argument I have had for a long time with those who only use the protracted section center lines as evidence and reject all existing monumentation.
Keith
Additional comment.
In fact these surveyors would reject a private survey monument that may be a few links away from their measured point, reject it and set a new monument for the corner of a 1/4/1/4 section!
And of course leave the existing monument to confuse everybody.
Keith
- Posted by: aliquotPosted by: Dave Karoly
State Societies should be agitating for a recording statute instead of promoting a practice of hitching your wagon onto someone else’s train. California’s first Statute was in 1892, 126 years ago.
Of course they should, but in the meantime OK surveyors need to deal with life without recording.
In Oklahoma many PLSS corners have multiple corner records filed that do not agree with each other, or even reference eachother, and provide no rational for the chosen position. Often the original GLO or BLM corner is also there, buried too deep for a $500 surveyor to afford to look for it. To make matters worse the corners are often described as being the corner of only one aliqout part (i.e. the NW corner of the SW1/4 instead of the 1/4 cor of secs. X and X). This gives the impression to land owners and even incompetent surveyors that the corners are not common.
Because of this, when creating a new boundary it is often crucial to describe the exact recovered monuments that were held to develop the metes part of the description. Otherwise a description that says, “From the NW corner of the NW1/4SW1/4 thence 100 feet south along the section line of X and X section”, needs to describe which two (or more) monuments were used to determine the section line. Otherwise three different surveyors can conclude 100 feet south is in three different places.
Yes we have had this discussion. I wanted to describe the existing monument at a 1/16th corner hoping that maybe the light will come on in some future Surveyor’s mind that we don’t mean the theoretically correct 1/16th corner but we mean the established corner. My Boss (also an LS) thought I was being unnecessarily verbose. The legal isn’t mine, it belongs to the agency so I don’t necessarily have the last word. Anyway he signed the legals in that case.
- Posted by: Keith Williams
Hey Dave,
Long time!!
I know what you mean by some surveyors marking monuments for one side only where in fact it should be common?
An argument I have had for a long time with those who only use the protracted section center lines as evidence and reject all existing monumentation.
Keith
Hello Keith, hope all is well with you.
now the Astaire-Crosby masterpiece Holiday Inn is on the TV.
Log in to reply.