Got a lot that is that was created by Plat . Schedule A has lot 1 of pb.45 page 78 . I describe my lot on the survey as lot 1 of pb. 45 page 78 . Attorney now says I must write a metes and bounds . I do not agree since this lot was not created by metes and bounds and will not match schedule A .
This has always been a pet peeve of mine. Our planning department and sometimes our legal department would want a metes and bounds when it was a platted lot in a subdivision.
Lot 1 Block 2 is entirely sufficient to describe a lot in a platted subdivision. I think I finally got through to them by arguing the a lot is only a small part of the plat which is a simultaneous creation document. It is not a stand alone tract.
There is a section in the new ALTA standards where this issue is addressed, point this out to him.
One of the intents of "platting" land is for ease of transfer, that is to have a legal description that is NOT metes and bounds but lot and block. Also, the lot and block IS the legal of record. After explaining this I have almost always had the metes and bounds request go away, except for one time. So I wrote a metes and bounds that contained no bearing nor distances, such as "Begin at the Southeast corner of Lot 20... ; Thence Northerly along the East line of said Lot 20 to the Northeast corner of said Lot 20... 😉
In my younger days, this type of request would bother me. I finally asked an attorney why he would want a redundant description. He replied,” That is the only way to perpetuate the monuments used to determine the boundary.” GOOD ANSWER! (Texas is a non-recording state) I no longer question this request. I prepare the description and add $300-$500 to the bill.
Metes, as in metes and bounds, comes from the Greman messen, meaning: to measure.
A metes and bounds description, by definition, contains bearings and distances as well as bounds.
With all due respect, your description was a fancy bounds description, not a metes and bounds description.
It has been admited to me that the purpose for a metes and bounds description, actually confused with a metes description, is so that a paralegal can enter the values in a program such as Deed Check to make sure the parcel closes.
The certificate on the Land Title Survey requires that we agree to the mathematical closure and positional tolerance per Section 3E, 6B i, iii and iv.
The significant purpose of subdividing land by a plat is that the parcels shown on the plat are created simultaneously. No parcel has any senior standing. The parcels are shown relative to each other, as pieces in a jigsaw puzzle. The minute that metes descriptions are created from such plats, positional uncertainty enters the picture and the potential to create discrepancies arises. The very purpose of the plat is to prevent this.
In states with subdivision statutes that require subdivision by map (such as California's Subdivision Map Act), the act of writing a metes desctiption to replace a lot & block description may be considered subdivision contrary to the requirements of the statute.
The surveyor's signature and seal on the plat imply that the "closure" of the description has been examined and found to be within acceptable standards.
There should be no further reason to require the metes description.
One of the very reasons for the new layout of the Land Title Survey Standards is to make it easier to read and understand the Standards.
In my experience, 99% of the lenders requirements that are not impossible to comply with are already covered in the Standards. The problem has been that the Standards grew too unwieldy to read and understand, particularly by non-surveyors.
Once the lenders and lenders counsels have a chance to read the new Standards, I belive that we will see a huge reduction in the explosion of lender's requirements and additional certifications.
I tell the attorney that we would be creating a second legal description that has the potential to be in conflict with the first description. Then I ask them what description do they think the court would hold if it came to that.
If they just insist to the point the deal would not get funded if I didn't write the metes and bounds I put in the metes and bounds that the described property is the same tract as Lot x Block x Subdivision recorded etc.
I am constantly amazed ....
at the reluctance to write a metes and bounds description. I don't care whether it's a 1000 acre parcel or a 2000 square foot town house lot - what's the big deal.
The metes and bounds description simply puts a picture into words. It's the bearings and distances around a parcel and the description of the corners. It DOES NOT create a new parcel. It does not create anything new. It simply describes what is on your plat.
I have seen many occasions where if it hadn't been for the M&B there would be no record because the plat was not recorded, the recording camera was out of fucus, the plat was reduced in size so much you couldn't read it, etc etc.
We write a description for almost every survey we do and it doesn't create any problems or conflict with a plat. The description should be exactly the same info as is on the plat.
Yes, I get compensated for it, but the average time to write a M&B description is typically 10 minutes or less. It's not a big deal.
I know that different parts of the country operate differently, but I just do not understand some of these arguments against writing a M&B.
Would not the "bounds" be the adjoiners, or public rights of way?
If I am correct, he has neither metes, nor bounds.
A phrase comes to mind, "more particularly described as".
The only reason to write a metes and bounds for a parcel created by lot and block is when the original plat does not describe the land as it actually exists on the ground. That would be when the measurements are well outside the accepted tolerances.
I am constantly amazed ....
When the property is described as a lot or parcel as shown on a plat, I resist writing a metes & bounds description because I don't think the recorded dimensions of the lot need to every time a new surveyor comes along. There are things that can be done so it shouldn't cause any problems, though, like on every course stating "along the __ line of said lot". The problems would occur if the m & b just stated b's & d's without the qualifying phrases and the m & b was used in a transfer. That changes the meaning of the description and would likely be found to be invalid.
I understand things are different in other parts of the country, but here in CA if we survey a lot and find that the dimensions are different from those shown on the plat, we file a map in the public record with our opinion of the dimensions, but we would still use "Lot X as shown on the plat" as the description in a transfer. The next surveyor that comes along might or might not agree precisely with the numbers on my map, but at least the description of the property doesn't change.
I have had friendly arguments with County personnel when writing descriptions for boundary adjustments. Sometimes the best way to describe a resultant parcel is "Lot X excepting the east 20 feet thereof" or whatever. They see the box on the checklist for a closure calculation and start looking for metes and bounds to satisfy that item.
Alta question - sacker2
> ..."Begin at the Southeast corner of Lot 20... ; Thence Northerly along the East line of said Lot 20 to the Northeast corner of said Lot 20... 😉
Not a single thing wrong with that one bud !
Perhaps... but it "met" the needs at the time..
Refer Attorney to Section 6.B.i. of the Standards
"The current record description of the surveyed property, and any new description of the surveyed property that was prepared in conjunction with the survey, including a statement explaining why the new description was prepared. Preparation of a new description should be avoided unless deemed necessary or appropriate by the surveyor and insurer. Preparation of a new description should also generally be avoided when the record description is a lot or block in a platted, recorded subdivision."
So there is a general admonition to not rewrite the description unless both the surveyor and the insurer believe it to be necessary (note that the attorney or paralegal are not mentioned). Further, there is a specific admonition not to do so where the parcel is a lot or block in a platted, recorded subdivision.
The only reason to alter the record description is to correct some defect. That may be a simple as a typo, or it may be an incorrectly described parcel, such as when someone in the chain changed a Lot/Block or aliquot description to a metes and metes (not a typo, I meant that) description.
Tell the attorney that you have already checked the closure and by using the ALTA certification, you have certified that you have done so. But if he/she is not satisfied with that, you will send them a copy of the closure report to compare to the boundary information on the map.
Refer Attorney to Section 6.B.i. of the Standards
Good thread. I have had mixed feeling about writing a description that can be construed (or misconstrued) as being the legal document of the boundary.
The term "legal description" has a lot of misunderstandings as well. The "legal description" (as I understand it) for a piece of property is the description that is attached to or within the deed; whether it is an appropriate and closing and/or well-worded description or not. Colorado law has reference to a "property description" which is the description of the property as written by a land surveyor as the result of the field survey. It is often referred to as the "legal description" and, indeed (and in deed) might be used as the description of the property the next time it is transferred....right or wrong.
I don't know what the land surveyor should properly do. It certainly makes sense to rewrite a poorly-written description for perpetuity but, on the other hand, the description that i might write as the result of my survey may or may not match what another surveyor might determine the boundary to be from their evaluation of the original legal description.
There is no doubt, that I would make senior calls to lot lines if I was some-how forced to write a "metes-and-bounds" of a subdivision lot. Even then I would worry about someone misusing my words.
Tom
Sacker2
"So I wrote a metes and bounds that contained no bearing nor distances, such as "Begin at the Southeast corner of Lot 20... ; Thence Northerly along the East line of said Lot 20 to the Northeast corner of said Lot 20..."
Explain how that is a metes and bounds description.
Metes = course and distance + monuments.
Bounds = Not only your line but all that are bounded to it.
Your description will be judged by your peers many many years from now and they will not even have a clue for your shaky reasoning.
Sorry, but there will be a day when you will not be around to defend your actions and your legacy.
Randy
Refer Attorney to Section 6.B.i. of the Standards
The attorney has backed off the request .His words " We just wanted a metes and bounds description to clearly show whether the crossed hatched area is included in our property or lies outside of it. "
The hatched area was to highlight an access easement . Anyway I win .
Also he wanted all the zoning requirements on the survey . he is sending me a zoning compliance report . I win again . Winning
