Shawn Billings, post: 450279, member: 6521 wrote: 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"
This is key.
Bill93, post: 450317, member: 87 wrote: This is key.
I agree. There is language that can protect the integrity of the original description as long as it's used.
Tom Adams, post: 450318, member: 7285 wrote: I agree. There is language that can protect the integrity of the original description as long as it's used.
Additionally, a properly written description (by properly I mean to my local standards;)) of this type not only ties to the chain of title in the preamble, but references the prior descriptions(s) as it proceeds through body of the description
[INDENT]Being the remaining lands of those described in a conveyance from Mary E. Brown and William L. Brown, her husband, Glenn F. Browning and Edith M. Browning, his wife, to Maxine F. Browning by deed dated August 11, 1953 and recorded in Liber 520 at Folio 165 among the Land Records of Frederick County, Maryland and being more particularly described as follows in the datum of a plat entitled "Maryland Manor, Lots 1-3 and Remainder Lot 4, Section 2" recorded in Plat Book 83 at Page 27 among the aforesaid Land Records:
Parcel 1
Beginning for the same at stone found marking the end of the 13th or South 37?ø East 38 perch line of the property described in a deed from John J. Bradshaw and Helen A. Bradshaw, his wife, to Jeremiah Browning dated April 1, 1883 and recorded in Liber A.F. 7 at Folio 133; said stone also marking the northeasterly corner of the land described in a deed from F. Upton Gladhill to the County Commissioners of Frederick County dated February 12, 1979 and recorded in Liber 1075 at Folio 21, both being among the aforementioned Land Records; thence running with the common line of said property of the County Commissioners of Frederick County
1. South 21?ø 29 '44" East, 203.74 feet to a stone found, said stone marking the northwesterly corner of Lot 317 as shown on a plat entitled "Final Plat, Section IV, Block B, Sundown Manor" recorded in Plat Book 48 at Page 191; thence leaving the aforesaid common line with the property of the County Commissioners of Frederick County and running with the outline of "Sundown Manor" the following two (2) courses and distances[/INDENT]
Nice example, Mr. Fleming. Partly from my training and education in a PLSS state and also being a geologist, I would add the dimensions of the stone (or if buried the dimensions at the top and depth), any marks on the stone, and the stone type to the new description. In Colorado stone monuments sometimes have a chiseled "+" to mark the corner, otherwise, the high point or center of the stone is held. I would include that information also in the description.
From Mr. Nold's description of the class, it appears that it accomplished one of the prime objectives of a good conference presenter....it got the attendees to think about the issue whether they uniformly disagreed with Mr. Stahl's opinion or not. For those that have never given a four or eight hour presentation at a surveyors' conference, it is not an easy task.
With one small caveat, I agree with Mr. Ellis that some PLSS surveyors don't have a good understanding of metes-and-bounds surveys. I'm a "PLSS surveyor" who with a rare exception only works with metes and bounds surveys. While most take PLSS to mean only the rectangular public land survey system, it is also includes several non-rectangular survey types, some of which are metes and bounds surveys (e.g. mineral surveys, homestead entry surveys, some U.S. Surveys, townsite surveys, etc.).
P.S. to add that I am a contrarian.
Gene Kooper, post: 450331, member: 9850 wrote: Nice example, Mr. Fleming. Partly from my training and education in a PLSS state and also being a geologist, I would add the dimensions of the stone (or if buried the dimensions at the top and depth), any marks on the stone, and the stone type to the new description. In Colorado stone monuments sometimes have a chiseled "+" to mark the corner, otherwise, the high point or center of the stone is held. I would include that information also in the description.
From Mr. Nold's description of the class, it appears that it accomplished one of the prime objectives of a good conference presenter....it got the attendees to think about the issue whether they uniformly disagreed with Mr. Stahl's opinion or not. For those that have never given a four or eight hour presentation at a surveyors' conference, it is not an easy task.
With one small caveat, I agree with Mr. Ellis that some PLSS surveyors don't have a good understanding of metes-and-bounds surveys. I'm a "PLSS surveyor" who with a rare exception only works with metes and bounds surveys. While most take PLSS to mean only the rectangular public land survey system, it is also includes several non-rectangular survey types, some of which are metes and bounds surveys (e.g. mineral surveys, homestead entry surveys, some U.S. Surveys, townsite surveys, etc.).
P.S. to add that I am a contrarian.
Thank you Gene - very well stated.