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
It's a "meets" and bounds. (jsut a typo).
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.
> 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.
Dave,
I will not write them for a Subdivision Lot that is part of a Recorded Subdivision in a manner to be included in a deed. The full legal description thereof is Lot XX, Block YY, of Subdivision XYZ as recorded in Book/Volume AAA, Pages BB-DD, in the Map/Plat Records of ABC County, State of FGH. If I do write one for a Lender/L@#yer, I will not put it on company letterhead, or on the face of the survey plat nor will I sign or seal it.
I do not want to contribute to creating a cloud on title.
It has happened.
Writing M&B for an acreage tract that is part of a lot or is not part of a recorded subdivision is a whole 'nother ball game. Do that all the time.
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.
Randy...
> "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..."
I think you (and a few others) missed the point on what Sacker wrote to appease an attorneys ego..cause that's all it was written for.
Randy...
Paul is correct. While others have been concerned with the mechanics of a metes and bounds, the intent was to not create a new description. I have since refused to perform these requests as I believe them to be detrimental.
Also, I agree that the metes is lacking but the bounds is fine as the plat itself addresses the adjoiners, but then again that wasn't my point.
> 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.
Actually... I find this misnomer perpetuated in a number of surveying textbooks. It's not really correct. The term "metes" has nothing to do with "measure" at all. (I know, it came as a surprise to me, too.)
The term, metes and bounds, is derived from Roman law from the word meta, referring to “the goal of a Roman race course; a mark or object about which the chariots turned, and where the course ended,” and from the word bunda, referring to “a limit, or enclosing line of lands. In the common phrase ‘metes and bounds,’ metes properly signify the angles, corners or turning points, and bounds the lines between; though practically little or no distinction is made between them.”
Quotation source: New Law Dictionary and Glossary: Containing Full Definitions of the Principle Terms of the Common and Civil Law, Together with Translations and Explanations of the Various Technical Phrases in Different Languages, Occurring in the Ancient and Modern Reports, and Standard Treatises; Embracing Also All the Principal Common and Civil Law Maxims. Compiled on the basis of Spelman's Glossary, and Adapted to the Jurisprudence of the United States;with Copious Illustrations, Critical and Historical. By Alexander M. Burrill, Counsellor at Law. 1851
Why do those old titles have to be so long? ;o)
The term "metes and bounds" is found used in the Justinian Digest, Book VIII, Title III, Section 23, Paulus (on Sabius 15):
"But where land to which a servitude is attached has been divided into portions marked out by metes and bounds among a number of owners in severalty, then, although the servitude attaches to all parts alike, still it is requisite that those owners whose portions do not adjoin the servient estate should have a legal right of passage across the other portions of the divided land or should be able to pass, with the leave of the respective adjoining owners."
Marking a boundary by "metes and bounds" referred to the physical monument placed at the "terminus" of the line (the "meta" or "metes") and by physically marking the "bound" by trees, walls, fences, etc. Boundaries are "physical" objects, not invisible lines defined by measurement or mathematics.
JBS
Interesting stuff !