So, at the TSPS Convention this week, John Stahl started a major controversy by suggesting that it is improper to rewrite a legal description. He did admit that 97% of Texas surveyors write a fresh description for every survey. But he pulled out examples of why not to rewrite. I tried to bring out the Rplstoday fight about record versus measures, but I didn't phrase it right. Cut to the break, I had local surveyors cussing Stahl. We chewed on it for the announced 10 minute break (record 14 minute break) and his comments had several Texas surveyors spitting mad. We figured out that John is from a recording state and the reason that most Texas surveyors revise the legal description is to get information into the title that wouldn't otherwise get recorded when they toss out the plat. I thought I would confront John on that when he resumed the seminar, but I ended up just catching him before the end of the break and relaying the counter argument. I'm glad that he quoted me almost word for word, but my vanity would have preferred acknowledgement. Lol. But in the end, what started slowly ended up being my favorite seminar. I look forward to seeing more of Mr. Stahl in Texas. The Montana fish pond example was a fascinating example of a tilted plane.
Hate that I missed that one.
I suppose it is confusing mixing title and survey data the way we do in a description. It's like a lot survey in a recorded subdivision. There is seldom a need to write a description of the lot. The title stands on its own from the original plat even though each subsequent survey may find variations in the monumentation and the directions and distances. (There have been a few rare occasions that I've written a description of a recorded lot because the plat was so vague.)
But since we have no recording mechanism for surveys, it's the only practical way to forward our surveys into the public domain.
[USER=6521]@Shawn Billings[/USER], that was the seminar I missed your demo for.
We'll do a demo one on one some day soon, maybe. Sounds like you made a good call going to John's seminar.
Was that convention in Austin?
Frisco. Far north Dallas.
Andy Nold, post: 450246, member: 7 wrote: So, at the TSPS Convention this week, John Stahl started a major controversy by suggesting that it is improper to rewrite a legal description. He did admit that 97% of Texas surveyors write a fresh description for every survey. But he pulled out examples of why not to rewrite. I tried to bring out the Rplstoday fight about record versus measures, but I didn't phrase it right. Cut to the break, I had local surveyors cussing Stahl. We chewed on it for the announced 10 minute break (record 14 minute break) and his comments had several Texas surveyors spitting mad. We figured out that John is from a recording state and the reason that most Texas surveyors revise the legal description is to get information into the title that wouldn't otherwise get recorded when they toss out the plat. I thought I would confront John on that when he resumed the seminar, but I ended up just catching him before the end of the break and relaying the counter argument. I'm glad that he quoted me almost word for word, but my vanity would have preferred acknowledgement. Lol. But in the end, what started slowly ended up being my favorite seminar. I look forward to seeing more of Mr. Stahl in Texas. The Montana fish pond example was a fascinating example of a tilted plane.
For clarity, are you writing "survey notes" or a property description on your survey plat based on the survey you just completed, or are you rewriting a legal description onto a deed to transfer title? I get John's point to transfer title with the same exact legal description as is on the earlier vesting deed, but if you are writing a description for your survey and not putting it on a deed, that's a different matter the way I see it.
Andy Nold, post: 450246, member: 7 wrote: So, at the TSPS Convention this week, John Stahl started a major controversy by suggesting that it is improper to rewrite a legal description. He did admit that 97% of Texas surveyors write a fresh description for every survey. But he pulled out examples of why not to rewrite. I tried to bring out the Rplstoday fight about record versus measures, but I didn't phrase it right. Cut to the break, I had local surveyors cussing Stahl. We chewed on it for the announced 10 minute break (record 14 minute break) and his comments had several Texas surveyors spitting mad. We figured out that John is from a recording state and the reason that most Texas surveyors revise the legal description is to get information into the title that wouldn't otherwise get recorded when they toss out the plat. I thought I would confront John on that when he resumed the seminar, but I ended up just catching him before the end of the break and relaying the counter argument. I'm glad that he quoted me almost word for word, but my vanity would have preferred acknowledgement. Lol. But in the end, what started slowly ended up being my favorite seminar. I look forward to seeing more of Mr. Stahl in Texas. The Montana fish pond example was a fascinating example of a tilted plane.
This is one of the reasons why I always try to avoid taking any CE's that deal with Boundary from Surveyors that are not Licensed in Texas, if they have a License from a Metes and Bounds state and I like the topic I may take the class. If it is from a PLSS Surveyor I pass on the class, PLSS Surveyors just do not understand how to Survey in Metes and Bound States.
New description goes on the deed. The new description references the old description.
The preamble of the new description will typically contain language like this: "Being 12.345 acres of land, being that same tract of land described as 10 acres in a deed from Joe Jones to John Smith, dated October 10, 1950, as recorded in Volume 1, Page 1, Deed Records, Rusk County, Texas"
From a title standpoint, the intent is clear, that regardless of the following metes and bounds, the grantor wishes to convey exactly what was conveyed to him in 1950. So a new description that does not exactly match the old does not (or should not) change the title. In this scenario, the new description does not change the shape or size of the land from what it was in 1950, it merely reflects a newer description of it.
Scott Ellis, post: 450278, member: 7154 wrote: This is one of the reasons why I always try to avoid taking any CE's that deal with Boundary from Surveyors that are not Licensed in Texas, if they have a License from a Metes and Bounds state and I like the topic I may take the class. If it is from a PLSS Surveyor I pass on the class, PLSS Surveyors just do not understand how to Survey in Metes and Bound States.
That's a good point, Scott. If the views expressed by the surveyor from the PLSS are not authoritative regarding differences between PLSS and M&B, I think it's healthy to be exposed to other types of systems. If the PLSS Surveyor comes in and says the long standing traditions of the M&B are errant, that's a problem.
i don't record jack. i write the new description. if the client and/or their agent chooses to record anything, it is entirely at their discretion.
as far as i'm concerned a succession of descriptions functions much like when you dig up an old pipe out in the woods and find 8 different guys' flagging knotted around it. or not. in other words, it's weight- or lack thereof- of common acceptance.
i don't operate with the attitude that i am a better surveyor than the last guy, or the guy before him. or that i write better descriptions. but i will say that, somehow, that has turned out to be exactly the case a few times. and that by writing a new description i managed (hopefully) to clarify some ambiguity or qualitative error for whoever comes after me.
There are seminar speakers that like to light a fuse in a room for discussion and controversy. It's a self preservation ploy to enhance their reputation as a presenter by stirring the pot.
I've witnessed a few speakers that employ this method.
One that I recall (twice) is the lawyer/surveyor from Alabama.
He also tossed in some political comments to add some electricity to the room.
If a presenter is an expert in a particular subject then they should restrain themselves about other subjects such as specific state practices that they haven't any experience.
They should pay more attention to learning about that state's practice than critiquing about it.
In a different thread, JB said:
JBStahl, post: 450075, member: 427 wrote: I didn't notice many empty seats after the break, I figure if no one will stir the pot and beat it with sticks, you loose their attention. A little controversy keeps the conversation alive. Really turned into a great discussion, though.
[rant on]
I can definitely relate. The struggle is real when trying to explain something to a room full of disinterested surveyors. Many times, "to stir the pot", a presenter will say something completely outlandish just to get people upset so that they will pay attention. I wasn't there, so I won't speculate that John did this. But I have been to many seminars where the presenter will say something to the effect of: "If you are doing this (or not doing this) then you are in clear violation of rule xx in the minimum technical standards." And of course "this" is something that every surveyor in the room does do (or doesn't do) daily. It makes for a nice bit of sensationalism and rewards the presenter with some activity instead of nodding gray heads.
A couple of years ago, I did a half day seminar for my local chapter. There was some interest, but I really didn't feel like many cared about the subject or were very moved to consider the affect of the topic on their daily work. Mostly I saw a lot of nodding gray heads. Not in agreement mind you, but in napping. Contrast that with this - this past spring, I did a training in Arkansas for the RTK equipment that I sell. There were no nodding heads there, even though quite a few of the heads were gray, and based on comments, the attendees generally felt they learned something they could apply to their daily work to improve their services or improve profitability (or both). That was a much more rewarding experience for the attendees and for me. Attendees to the first seminar were there under mandate (chapter x, section y, so-and-so statute), attendees to the two day training event were there for personal development (how do I use this device for fun and profit).
We've all been to poorly presented seminars that provided us with nothing for our investment of time and money. But many presenters will put hours of effort into a presentation and have a tremendous depth of knowledge and passion on a topic. Attitude has an immeasurable affect on how much we take from a seminar. If we were more engaged as a profession in improving ourselves, as CEU requirements have attempted to do by mandate (which is impossible), presenters would not have to resort to tabloid style sensationalism to get some activity out of us and we could actually pull something from the meat of the material presented.
[rant off]
Andy Nold, post: 450246, member: 7 wrote: The Montana fish pond example was a fascinating example of a tilted plane.
I am curious, can you (or someone else) explain this? Thanks!
John is a good speaker and he has made a lot of guys on this forum, as well as on his speaking tours, start to think for themselves. He has a good point about deeds, irrespective of what your area says about them. If you are transferring the same property you acquired, the "legal" description is the original description of when that property was broken out. I get the concept of updating a description to meet current measured distances and to reference to monuments found in the ground. It certainly helps the next retracing surveyor (if that surveyor is correct). The problem with updating a description can be found in a new surveyor not coming up with the same conclusion as to where the original property lies, and perpetuates (and memorializes) that bad survey with a new deed. What happens when you come through retracing a survey and find an iron that the last scrivener references, and it doesn't agree with your finding of an original marker you find? Now what is the legal description of that property? Did the last scrivener create a gap between the original property and his new legal description?
I don't know local customs in a lot of other states, and certainly can't tell them how it should be done. I also know that there might be State Statutes that dictate some of these practices. But considering other points of view and trying to figure out the logic in what another expert is trying to convey is a good thing.
My point is trying to learn from other experts and finding case law and reasons behind their points is much more valuable than just deciding you don't like them because they didn't tell you what you wanted to hear.
I am more amazed when the presenter will present something as being wrong that 90% of the class does in their practice but not one person has the balls to stand up for their practice and try to defend it to the presenter. In fact that has always been my comment for making a conference better on the after conference survey monkey. A class with a mediator and a topic. Such as "virtual pin cushion" when is it ok to pin cushion and when is it ok to call the mon 0.12' north and not set another? Then go to town debating it in open forum. Jp
Tom Adams, post: 450301, member: 7285 wrote: What happens when you come through retracing a survey and find an iron that the last scrivener references, and it doesn't agree with your finding of an original marker you find? Now what is the legal description of that property? Did the last scrivener create a gap between the original property and his new legal description?
Shawn Billings, post: 450279, member: 6521 wrote: So a new description that does not exactly match the old does not (or should not) change the title. In this scenario, the new description does not change the shape or size of the land from what it was in 1950, it merely reflects a newer description of it.
The boundary is where it always was. A survey doesn't necessarily change a boundary unless the property owners acquiesce to the surveyor's position of the boundary.
Shawn Billings, post: 450308, member: 6521 wrote: The boundary is where it always was. A survey doesn't necessarily change a boundary unless the property owners acquiesce to the surveyor's position of the boundary.
"The boundary is where it always was"....then why do you need a new description for title transfer?
Is transferring title based on a surveyor's altered legal description "acquiescing" to that new description location? If it's in conflict with the original, did the adjoiner acquiesce as well?
The contrary can easily be shown, but the expectation is that the newer description will better describe the property than the older one.
Tom Adams, post: 450309, member: 7285 wrote: "The boundary is where it always was"....then why do you need a new description for title transfer?
Is transferring title based on a surveyor's altered legal description "acquiescing" to that new description location? If it's in conflict with the original, did the adjoiner acquiesce as well?
You're looking for a problem that's not a problem because we've been doing it this way (at least in Maryland) for 385 years and have all the bugs worked out (primarily through court decisions).
[INDENT]Any discussion of subsequent deeds is irrelevant. In the absence of facts giving rise to an estoppel, we decline to establish a rule of law that binds successors to real property to all descriptions of property made by their predecessors in prior deeds, particularly where the original patent contradicts such deeds. Moreover, one purporting to be an adjoining land-owner should not be allowed to capitalize on such mistakes where the boundaries are correctly established by even earlier deeds or, in this case, earlier patents.
Ski Roundtop, Inc. v. Wagerman 79 Md. App. 357 (1989)[/INDENT]
One of the first things a surveyor learns when working in a land tenure system like the one I work in is that there are only two types of surveys: original and retracement, One retraces the original survey, if there are previous retracements in the land records one uses those as just another type of evidence. The vast majority of the time one agrees with the prior retracement.
As for the purpose of a new description it's twofold (at least): 1) it helps the landowner by providing an accurate description of their holdings (and in many cases a description that can be insured by a title company...no one is insuring title on a two acre parcel with a description in perches that doesn't close by 25 feet); 2) it helps the landowner by keeping from having to pay a surveyor to reinvent the wheel every time a parcel is surveyed.
There certainly is a case to be made that the mandatory recording of surveys would eliminate the need to rewrite descriptions for the run of the mill retracement (as opposed to descriptions with errors that need to be fixed). But there is no mechanism, will, or realistic hope that a process for mandatory recording surveys will ever happen here.
So we work with the system that tradition has handed us, and others work with the system that tradition has handed them. As it should be
"Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead....Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man??s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man??s opinion, even if he is our father.?
-G.K. Chesterton