This deed made me laugh a little bit being of the warranty variety but with an ambiguous strip description followed by a bunch of more or less'.
The very first sentence is missing a key element. 1.5 acres (more or less)...... 🤔
@landbutcher464mhz Hah Yeah, the one place that should have it.
(295'+35') x 198'= exactly 1.5000000000 acres. Since there is no call for any monuments, save for, perhaps, an aliquot part division line, the "more or less" calls are moot. Unless there are better described senior adjoiners limiting things, there is no choice but to honor the exact dimensions. After time and occupation works its magic, there may be boundaries established with alternate dimensions by unwritten doctrines.
@norman-oklahoma Yeah, if they were gonna spam more or less then at least have some calls to other bounds. I don't think the more or less' is moot at all though, in fact, I think it adds a ton of ambiguity to the description. I mean how do you make a description any more ambiguous than by calling into question every single dimension one describes? lol
Descriptions in Idaho, at least that I've seen, don't normally describe monuments. I think this makes 100% sense since monuments change over time. Since we're a recording state there should be a survey that shows the monuments anyway; it just won't be part of the deed is all.
Anyway, definitely fieldwork in store if this project goes ahead.
Found in the phonebook under Land Surveyors: Moorer, Les
... since monuments change over time
?? Here's a little refresher for Idaho:
Natural monuments set at the time of the original survey
Artificial monuments set and referred to in the original deed description
Calls for courses.
Calls for distance, and
Area
I know I've seen a few lists that include calls to senior abutters as well, but not sure I agree with their placement in the list.
Do they not memorialize the fundamental importance of the priority of calls> How do they rectify conflicting evidence?
How do they rectify conflicting evidence?
I guess they consider a 1/2" rebar set and called for in a 1968 deed, wiped out at some point and re-set with a 5/8" rebar in 1982 more problematic than having monument-free descriptions.
This would be a bad way of doing things if we weren't required to record surveys, but since we are there's often a nice record of surveys that show how monuments have been obliterated and reset over time.
?? Here's a little refresher for Idaho:
Natural monuments set at the time of the original survey
Artificial monuments set and referred to in the original deed description
Calls for courses.
Calls for distance, and
Area
Hmmm.... Natural monuments set? Huh? Anyway.... I note that uncalled for monuments do not appear on this list. Such monuments may provide an objective basis for the establishment of boundaries by unwritten means, but they do not instantly acquire all powerful proof status upon being set.
Those are typical for some older descriptions locally. Squares and rectangles laid out in an aliquot part of a section. Not much to reference except adjoiner descriptions that were broken out of the same patent. Put them together, figure out junior/senior, place the right of way, find evidence on the ground and have fun.
I came across a number of deeds like this in one area. Researching back through the chain it was discovered that all the original parcels were granted from a Donation Land Claim owned by one of the GLO surveyors in our area. The original cursive deeds called for stones with 4 accessories at each corner. When they were typed, all the information about monuments and accessories were not included. Could that be a possibility with this deed also?
I mean how do you make a description any more ambiguous than by calling into question every single dimension one describes? lol
Oh, that's easy. Just don't give any dimensions at all.
@norman-oklahoma Yeah, if they were gonna spam more or less then at least have some calls to other bounds. I don't think the more or less' is moot at all though, in fact, I think it adds a ton of ambiguity to the description. I mean how do you make a description any more ambiguous than by calling into question every single dimension one describes? lol
Descriptions in Idaho, at least that I've seen, don't normally describe monuments. I think this makes 100% sense since monuments change over time. Since we're a recording state there should be a survey that shows the monuments anyway; it just won't be part of the deed is all.
Anyway, definitely fieldwork in store if this project goes ahead.
How long has Idaho been a recording state? Does the WD exist prior to that indoctirnation, and if so, if the colloquial 'more or less' ( which i hate and have been encouraged to never use by mentors) actually does nothing ambiguous but prevents an over eager attorney from trying to wrangle 0.0001' from a given dimension somewhere. Its actually giving the tacit approval for the monuments to hold, with an understanding they might move(In my humble Unlicensed opinion] IMHUO)
From my PLSS course I matriculated through recently, that seems pretty ok esp if its turn of the 20th century or earlier,and even later if they're running unplatted land, what else but aliquots is there to describe until there is?
Ok, I've got my Aluminum fire proof undies on, let me have it!!!!!!!!
I mean how do you make a description any more ambiguous than by calling into question every single dimension one describes?
Let's think this through like a judge would .......
The "more or less" calls in the OPs deed are simply redundant, not ambiguous. Every recitation of distance in a deed is of the more or less variety, whether expressly so stated or not. If there is something from higher in the hierarchy of calls to modify it, it is modified. If not, it isn't. Here, there is none. So the distance calls are exact.
Next, remember your parol evidence rule - if the description within the deed is unambiguous, you can't bring in parol evidence to reinterpret it. This deed is perfectly unambiguous. It closes exactly, and makes up the stated area exactly. The fact that we all feel certain that the grantor must have intended something else has no effect.
That dispenses with the deed and its description.
Now we can turn to unwritten boundary doctrines to determine the actual boundaries. We can look at the adjoiners descriptions, the acts and lines of occupation and the found markers that people have relied on over long periods of time. These unwritten boundaries supersede the deed description, but they do not modify it.
Following these steps we end up with property dimensions that vary from those stated in the deed while satisfying all the applicable doctrines of law.
I agree with Norman. The ambiguity in the deed is the same whether the phrases "more or less" are present or if they are removed. I still know where the property is and am able to go survey the boundary.
An official perfectly accurate map probably existed. The scale was 1 inch equals 1 inch--full-size map out there on the ground. I'd say the only way one could figure this out would be to try to check title chains and use old aerial photos and old and any lines of possession. If in litigation, I would just tell the judge exactly what you did to try to find the land, and don't insist that you have the perfect solution, and instead have the best you can do to figure it out. Suggest boundary agreements. Don't let an attorney try to get you to try to say that your survey is a cast-in-stone solution.
Yeah, the question was partially tongue in cheek and I don't expect I would throw my hands up in hopeless frustration if faced with the task of locating the parcel.