This one goes back to the days when people just made up whatever they thought was adequate between the buyer and seller. This is the "You know what I mean" version of description writing.
Being part of (river) lot 3 and that part of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section x, described as beginning on the west side of the slough, then going 416 feet down the slough, then west 1579 feet to the center line of a road, then 416 feet north along the center line, then 1579 feet east to the point of beginning.
The road runs roughly 30 degrees to the west of north.
The slough is curving to the southeast severely.
The slough is nowhere near where it is today way back when the first version of the description was written.
The north line of the tract is a quarter-quarter section line though that is not clear in the description.
The property to the south has been surveyed to run parallel with the quarter-quarter section line but at a perpendicular gap of precisely 416 feet. Ignore the angle of the road and the actual direction the slough flows.
The south line of the tract is closer to 1250 feet than 1579 feet.
The north line of the tract is closer to 850 feet than 1579 feet.
I ran into a description years ago that bore no metes, just bounds. I did survey the property and found it to be intact pretty much as the description described. It also quoted an acreage that was horribly erroneous though.
This property sat on the north side of a state highway ran NE to SW. The description read something like, "Beginning at a point on the north r/w of SH 19 at the intersection of the r/w and the west line of the NE/4, then ne'ly along the r/w to Buck Creek, then nw'ly on the thread of the creek to the west line of the NE/4, then south along the west line to the point of beginning and containing 7 acres more or less."
It described the property perfectly except there was only about 5 and a half acres within the boundary. And although my survey had all sorts of good little bearings and distances shown, I left the description intact, only correcting the acreage.
The title company raised hell and wanted me to create a metes and bounds description. My main contention was the creek was more than able to eventually meander giving a metes and bounds description the possibility of limiting, or fixing the boundary and creating a mess where one didn't previously exist. Thankfully they eventually saw it my way with the help of both the seller and buyer.
The scary part was the title examiner didn't see things my way. He felt the boundary should be fixed because that's where it was at the time of the original conveyance (wherever that was ?!). My argument was we only had the document and deciphering any wishes of long-gone grantors was above my pay scale.
Some people, eh?
I recently ran into an example of an “all metes, no bounds” description: “beginning at a point with a coordinate of… (lists 15 bearings and distances with no bounds whatsoever) to the point of beginning”.
I wish I could say it was the worst I’ve ever seen, but those typically are worse due to scrivener’s errors.
The slough has moved both west and south. The result is that the south line is under 1000 feet and the north line is under 800 feet. A lot of land has gone "bye-bye" since the first writing. This is not a river, although it looks like one.
@paden-cash If you could put that description on the ground in a unique manner, then it is a good description, no matter how horrid it may look to a non-surveyor, and certainly no need to "improve" it.
Many times when I start a survey I have more questions than answers. Is a call to a slough a call to a meander line? Are sloughs more prone to move in a flood event or over a prolonged period of time?
It will be interesting to see what your survey reveals.
