Anybody have any examples of "rewritten" descriptions?

Attorney's don't rewrite around here, they copy and paste the same one from the last transfer even if there's a new survey. I dealt with one last week that had the same transposed number on the last two deed transfers.

The ones I hate are where they swap back and forth between something like Government Lot 4 and The Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter several times over the decades.

Then there are those who dislike exceptions so much that when they cut a little tract out of something like the Northeast Quarter of the section they insist on writing a metes and bounds description for the remaining 156.5 acres. Frequently when doing so they leave out the calls to the quarter section lines and section lines to further confuse the true intent.

It appears that Texicans prepare a totally rewritten report on every survey because their distances and bearings will never agree with anyone else's and now they are finding bars they set the last time they were there.

HC hit it!
I have seen aliquot part descriptions (ie: SE 1/4 sec, twp, rge) needlessly turned into a metes and bounds description. Nobody can ever explain to me why.

I once ran into a description written by the title agent and based on my survey. He used the shorter distance of the record or measured distances shown on the survey. Some courses it was record some it was measured. Needless to say the description didn't even come close to closing. I asked him why, his response was they would only insure the lesser distance. I don't believe he is selling title insurance anymore.

For a long time in this area it was the practice of title companies to strip out the calls to the filed maps and all calls in the metes and bounds except the public road. Leaving nothing but a metes description with a tie to an imaginary street intersection.

Fortunately now days they seem more willing to just cut and paste the description I provide with the survey.

One of my early experiences was the split of a mountain ranch property for purchase by a ski resort for the water rights. After describing the new line, in part "the following 28 courses along said creek" and providing a plat and the description to the attorney I was surprised a few days later to get a copy of the rewritten description in the recorded deed with all reference to the creek removed! I learned then not to include such calls in the description.
I have also helped resolve the issues created when an "uncle who knows surveying" helped with with deeds to divide a several hundred acre ranch into separate parcels for disposal to heirs by aliquot descriptions. He just got the sequence in reverse so that the NE1/4 SE1/4 became the SE1/4 NE1/4. This did not endear the family to the neighbors whose land they had just Quit Claimed.

Here is a rewritten description that cause a huge survey problem and a pretty big landowner lawsuit.

All deeds on this property had read the same since 1921, then BPA wrote a description (in 1942) for an easement and included a description of the grantors fee property, but the description was different. That description got recorded in the next transfer of title. Since 1942 to present day the BPA description had been carried through title. This caused a property line to be misinterpreted by an angle of 20 degrees. Yes, degrees. That South got changed to Southerly on adjoining properties and the angle was then used for the other 4 properties around it.

In brief: the original deed read "South down the road, thence East" the BPA dead changed it to "Southerly down the road, thence East". The first implies 90 degrees, the second, well it doesn't matter what the road is but then we go due East. The road was 20 degrees off of North, so this little change caused a 90 degree angle to become a 110 degree angle. Mass confusion for 60 years then 10 years after that lawsuit.

Here is a rewritten description that cause a huge survey problem and a pretty big landowner lawsuit.

All deeds on this property had read the same since 1921, then a description showed up in a BPA document (in the 40's) for an easement and included a description of the grantors fee property, but the description was different. That description got recorded in the next transfer of title. Since that description in the 1940's to present day the BPA description had been carried through title. This caused a property line to be misinterpreted by an angle of 20 degrees. Yes, degrees. That South got changed to Southerly on adjoining properties and the angle was then used for the other 4 properties around it.

In brief: the original deed read "South down the road, thence East" the BPA dead changed it to "Southerly down the road, thence East". The first implies 90 degrees, the second, well it doesn't matter what the road is but then we go due East. The road was 20 degrees off of North, so this little change caused a 90 degree angle to become a 110 degree angle. Confusion ensued for 60 years, then 10 years after that, lawsuit.

[USER=6808]@ppm[/USER]

Thanks, your post verified mine. 😎

I am working on a problem right now where a patent was issued for Gov't Lot 1 in 1888. The patentee sold the land in 1917 as the S1/2 NW1/4 thereby including Gov't Lot 3. Almost 100 years later there are a subdivision, an Interstate highway, numerous utility corridors and two additional owners by Quit Claim in Gov't Lot 3 which is unpatented!

I work in south Louisiana where up to the 1920's to 40's the arpent was the preferred unit of measure for both distance and area. Even though I still see a few descriptions with arpent, they are mostly churches who have owned the property since the late 1800's. These descriptions were changed during this time period. One area arpent is roughly 0.85 of an acre.

Its been my experience that approximately 95% of the deed writers did the math when converting the areas from arpent to acre. Its the 5% that did not that causes problems. When I find the area that varies greatly from the deed area I usually research back to the early 1900's. I have found deeds dated 1920 saying 50 arpents more or less, then 10 years later the same property is sold and described as 50 acres.

It's can be difficult to explain to someone who has a deed that states 50 acres, how they now have 42.5 or so acres.

Dan Dunn, post: 403045, member: 911 wrote: I once ran into a description written by the title agent and based on my survey. He used the shorter distance of the record or measured distances shown on the survey. Some courses it was record some it was measured. Needless to say the description didn't even come close to closing. I asked him why, his response was they would only insure the lesser distance. I don't believe he is selling title insurance anymore.

For a long time in this area it was the practice of title companies to strip out the calls to the filed maps and all calls in the metes and bounds except the public road. Leaving nothing but a metes description with a tie to an imaginary street intersection.

Fortunately now days they seem more willing to just cut and paste the description I provide with the survey.

Around here Title Companies usually insert a "Record" bearing and/or distance after my call, but they never cite the source of the record. I have explained the uselessness of this practice to Title Officers as many times as I have explained the difference between "each" and "either". They either don't understand or tell me "Well, that's just the way we do it". I believe that they think it is a CYA thing if they demonstrate that distances are not absolute, but I'm not sure.

KScott, post: 403055, member: 1455 wrote: He just got the sequence in reverse so that the NE1/4 SE1/4 became the SE1/4 NE1/4. This did not endear the family to the neighbors whose land they had just Quit Claimed.

Oh I'll bet that was fun! 😉