Hated to have missed this thread today. Going to try to revive it. TTT
This is an item of interest for me. For years, or decades even, I have been told to do it the way this thread is stongly trending. Don't write a metes description for a lot in a platted subdivision. The only trouble is when I ask "why not?". I'm still waiting on someone to articulate a definitive answer. I certainly haven't seen one in this thread.
Obviously, if your survey's calls closely match the plat's then you're not accomplishing much, and I don't enjoy wasting my time, so, I would be very disinclined to do it in that instance. (But I still don't see any harm in it if I were to write one.) But, the most often occuring scenario is when your calls, based on your retracement, don't closely match the plat. I say why not write a "survey description? Most modern subdivisions (but certainly not all) that I encounter around here (Mobile, Alabama) are pretty good. But, you go back a few years, say the mid to early 70's, and, WOW, you best bring your shovel, you're going to need it. And this is a city with a 300 year history.
I think the people responsible have done a pretty good job with the new ALTA standards. But, they don't offer any reasoning as backing for their opinion on this matter, just that is is strongly ill-advised. That's not good enough for me.
Some have stated in this thread that it could lead to future conflicts in descritpions between conflicts. Well, DUHHH!!!! That's the whole point. The surveyor retracing the platted lot has determined that the true lot dimensions are different enough to warrant a new and hopefully more accurate description of the lot. You may counter with "why should we trust new surveyor's description over the old?" Well, as mentioned above, most modern subdivisions easly pass muster, but for the older ones you would be better off assuming that ACTUAL is NOT going to match RECORD.
The best response I have heard so far, is that a metes description brings senior rights into play, into an area that they were not intended. The person stating thus said that this would lead to title conflicts. But, they didn't provide any example of this; no court cases, no anecdotes, ... nada. I have yet to hear of the first real world example of a conflict arising from a metes description of a platted lot. If any of you know of any, PLEASE send them my way. I seriously want to know. Getting back to this line of reasoning, I will say I disagree; I don't think that you are creating a scenario that involves senior rights. You are retracing a lot that was created simultaneously with other lots. No senior rights. My retracing of one of these lots, in which, presumably I used proration if necessary, is just that. A retracement. You all know that a surveyor is not obligated to follow a retracing surveyor. (Immaterial to this discussion that 9 times out of 10 it makes sense to follow a previous retracer) You are only obligated to put the corners where the first surveyor put them or would have put them. But, with my new description, you now know that I found a John Doe capped rebar instead of the original crimped iron, which has not been seen since the 50's. You now know that I did find an original crimped iron which was lost to a new power pole two years after I surveyed it, that was almost a foot out of record distance due to systematic chaining errors. What you have is a record of a presumably competent surveyor's findings. The dimunition of field evidence is an unchanging and irresistable tide. But, this tide only flows one way. Why leave it to chance that future surveyors will find the same evidence?
OK, that's it. Let me hear your arguments.
Stephen.
>
> This is an item of interest for me. For years, or decades even, I have been told to do it the way this thread is stongly trending. Don't write a metes description for a lot in a platted subdivision. The only trouble is when I ask "why not?". I'm still waiting on someone to articulate a definitive answer. I certainly haven't seen one in this thread.
Why Not? You ask
One very basic principle
simultaneous conveyance
Each lot within a subdivision has equal authority,
because the lots were created at the same time
If you don't believe me
I must refer you to Brown's Boundary Control and Legal Principles Section 11.3
A regional thing, I guess. If writing a metes and bounds description with calls to found and set monuments and your opinion of the dimensions of a platted lot is the only way you have to get that information into a public record, go for it but be careful to qualify the information so it doesn't supersede the fact that it is still Lot X of Y Acres. That's the fear about re-writing the description; that the numbers will become more important than the lot designation.
Go ahead and roll your eyes in boredom, but in a recording state all that stuff goes on a map that gets recorded for all to see. The plat can't change, it's recorded the way it was first drawn, and the description of the property doesn't have to change, it's still the lot as shown on that plat. The map shows what you found, its condition, what you looked for and didn't find, what you set, occupation lines, fubars, your measurements and if necessary, you can write explanatory notes of why you did what. It works pretty well. And no, we don't get mad if somebody makes a copy and uses it, that's what it's for. Would anybody think there should be a copyright on a metes and bounds description that's intended to enhance the public records?
Thank you. Which has to do with what exactly?
I have retraced a lot using the principles of simultaneous conveyance. A decade later the evidence I found may not be available. That doesn't invalidate my findings. And with a new description, my findings are more likely to be adhered to down through the years.
Stephen
> .... be careful to qualify the information so it doesn't supersede the fact that it is still Lot X of Y Acres. That's the fear about re-writing the description; that the numbers will become more important than the lot designation.
>
OK, fine. But if Lot X is shown on the subdivision plat as 85' by 236.4' but is in fact 85.75' by 235.30' then why isn't the world better served by entering these facts into the record?
I won't say the numbers are more important than the lot designation, but they are probably a lot more precise.
Put another way, why is the lot designation annointed with so much importance, when it may not tell the landowners much in the way of meaningful information?
Stephen
You're absolutely right, Stephen. It is important to get the data from your retracement into a public record somehow. That way, if it's publicly available, the next surveyor will have the advantage of your work to know what was there on the date of your survey. That doesn't mean he has to agree with you, but it is likely he will, thereby adding to the stability of property boundaries rather than if your findings are stuck in your filing cabinet and the next surveyor's are in his and the next surveyor after that doesn't know either one of you has been there and all he has to go on is the old plat.
The reason the lot designation is so important is the simultaneous conveyance thing. Just because you say the lot is a certain shape doesn't mean the next surveyor will agree. He should go through the same motions in determining the boundaries of the lot that you did and hopefully will agree.
Right, Steve. If my survey description is incorporated into the next deed, but prefaced by "Lot X, Happy Valley Acres and more particularly described as .....(my description)", well, again, why is that a bad thing?
Stephen
It's not a bad thing but it would make me nervous if you didn't put in "along the east line of said lot X..." in your courses because if somebody left off the preamble, it would seem like the lot was created by metes and bounds, which it wasn't.
So, let's say a surveyor 40 years ago surveyed Lot X and wrote a description "Lot X, more particularly described as (m & b)..." Now you come along with your far superior measurement ability, do you swap out the old m & b for your new improved description? Could this become confusing after it happens a few times?
Do you mean any more confusing than a m & b description for a sequentially conveyed lot?
But to answer your question, the preamble of "Lot X, Happy Valley Subdiv. as shown on Plat Book 85, Pg 125 and more particularly described as .... (description)" should take care of any confusion as to the origin of the lot.
Stephen
You're right, it should...until a clerk at an attorney's office or title company gets hold of it and neglects to include the preamble.
Ah, now sequential metes and bounds conveyances. I wouldn't re-write those either. If it says 660.00 feet to the south line of Smith and I measure it 661.00, I don't sit down and re-write the description, I put it on a map and record it. If you can't do that, maybe re-writing it ala Schaut is what you have to do, but let's say such a parcel has been surveyed four different times in the last hundred years, does the description change every time? Seems confusing to me, but I'm brainwashed into the recording state method.
Where does one begin and where does one stop in determining the TRUE location and dimensions of a certain lot in a certain block? Does one first locate the controlling outer boundaries of the entire subdivision and establish a basis of bearings relative to those lines, then double proportion the entire plat to arrive at the theoretically ideal position of each lot line, meanwhile ignoring all monuments set by surveyors other than Joe Dirt in 18XX? Or do we merely grab the nearest convenient monuments and prorate between them getting something like a 1.0876453 times plat dimensions east-west and 0.99884289 times plat dimensions north-south? Or do we grab the centerlines of streets and decide that the block between the four centerlines is controlled completely by those measurements regardless of what the plat says?
The property description is: Lot Z in Block H of Happy Camper Acres. Anything else is a bunch of garbage made up by one perfect measurer versus a different bunch of garbage made up by someone else for the adjoiners lot and the two have nothing in common despite at least one line bearing the characteristic that it should be identical in both cases.
Wow, I can really see the differences in regional practices.
It is common practice here to write a property description based upon the new survey. I had the opportunity to exchange property descriptions with a fellow surveyor a few years ago on the old board, and he rewrote my description in his own style. It was vastly different than what I am used to seeing here, but the basic point was that they both accurately described the property.
When I was coming up in the profession, I was taught to write the property description in such a way that you could draw the plat from it, including adjacent property owners, etc.
I have no problem writing a new description as part of the survey. It is always a part of my propsal fee-wise.
All of my descriptions include what the parcel is recorded as, for example Lot 1 of Smith Subdivision as recorded in Plat Cabinet A Slide 1.
The new description puts in the record what was found or set monument-wise, and that is a good thing.
> Where does one begin and where does one stop in determining the TRUE location and dimensions of a certain lot in a certain block? Does one first locate the controlling outer boundaries of the entire subdivision and establish a basis of bearings relative to those lines, then double proportion the entire plat to arrive at the theoretically ideal position of each lot line, meanwhile ignoring all monuments set by surveyors other than Joe Dirt in 18XX? Or do we merely grab the nearest convenient monuments and prorate between them getting something like a 1.0876453 times plat dimensions east-west and 0.99884289 times plat dimensions north-south? Or do we grab the centerlines of streets and decide that the block between the four centerlines is controlled completely by those measurements regardless of what the plat says?
>
Why second guess the situation? Just assume that it was competently surveyed for our discussion. If it wasn't, if it was pin-cushioned, or if original irons were missed, then of course it would be wrong to write a new survey description. For this discussion, let's consider that the lot was properly retraced and that today's instrumentation provided an opportunity to measure lines with far greater precision than those available 50 years ago when the lot was platted.
> The property description is: Lot Z in Block H of Happy Camper Acres. Anything else is a bunch of garbage made up by one perfect measurer versus a different bunch of garbage made up by someone else for the adjoiners lot and the two have nothing in common despite at least one line bearing the characteristic that it should be identical in both cases.
Now, you've lost me. Earlier in this thread I mentioned something to the effect that a record lot depth of 264.7 is in fact 265.35' or something like that. Back in the 50's they had to chain it down a pretty good grade and break chain several times. Today I shot both irons from one set up with bipods and came up with 265.35'. I have a great respect for the earlier surveyors, but my measurements should be better in this instance. How does that equal garbage?
Slight Hijack Stephen, but Happy Birthday!
I still do not understand .....
the reluctance to write a metes and bounds description. A M&B desc has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Junior/Senior rights or any of these other strawman arguments that get tossed out.
A M&B description describes a parcel of land that I surveyed. Nothing more / nothing less. It does NOT create any new rights in and by itself. It is written to accompany a plat that I prepared. It puts into words the information I put on the plat. I do not write a M&B description of a new parcel without a plat.
I put the M&B desc on letterhead and around here the lawyers attach the description as an exhibit so my company information remains intact. And, yes, most of the time the plat is also attached as an exhibit. And that is a good thing because I have seen many a recorded plat that is not readable after going through the process of recording which may include breaking into multiple pages, extreme reduction, worn out from handling, etc. There are many times I have thanked heaven for the description.
I still do not understand .....
Scenario Dave-
You have Lot 1 Block 12 that by plat is 50x120'. Minimum lot size for building in our town is 6000 square feet.
You turn in a description, that while factual and that truthfully depicts the actual lot size, shows 50 x 119.5...Client is turned down for building permit.
And yes, I've seen this happen in Lawton. Just one reason.
I still do not understand .....
So what's your duty? To tell the truth? Or to hide the truth so your client can get a building permit?
A M&B description describes the results of your survey. Nothing more / nothing less. Your new plat would show the same thing.
I would argue that a surveyor is derelict in his duties if he does not report the truth.
I still do not understand .....
No matter how innocently one thinks while writing a metes and bounds description to prove the true dimensions of a tract known as Lot 17, the truth is that laypeople will grab onto that description and want to use it to REPLACE the dull and imprecise-sounding term, Lot 17. THAT is the problem. Especially when a different surveyor, using a different basis of bearings and a different precision of measurement creates a description for adjoining Lot 16 that contradicts the common lot line between Lots 16 and 17. Then the village idiot who is employed in the mapping department at the county office ignores the original plat and attempts to make 17 different descriptions fit together. Said village idiot then declares all surveyors charlatans and bastards.
Please do not add chaos where none is required. Provide your plat, described as Lot 17, with original dimensions and courses shown plus your numbers for each thus providing verification of intent. Do not provide the innocent minds out there with a description summarizing your work as it will only lead to increased chaos. You have done your job. The client can see that the tract does exist and closely resembles the plat (or not). That should be all that is needed.
I still do not understand .....
Well said Holy.
YOU'RE TOO KIND, SIR!!!!
