This is a continuation of the discussion at:
https://surveyorconnect.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=200105
I want to thank all of you digital creatures inside my laptop for offering such great advice.
I've tried to contact those who would lead me to the title officer, but I'm not getting return phone calls. I'm going to send out the following and call it done.
...
I was told that the title company has added an exception to the title policy because the measurements in the American Land Title Association (ALTA) Survey do not match the boundaries as described in the public record, being the Special Warranty Deed filed for record on ----- 2003, in Book ----- on pages -----, where ----- conveyed land title to -----. I feel that doing so is a mistake.
If I were to update the ALTA Survey by reforming the legal description with such language as “Being the same as” and then inserting a new description based on the field measurements, such an action would be a detrimental matter of breaking the chain of legal title by interjecting a surveyor's opinion into a contract between two property owners, that contract being the record deed that conveyed legal title to the land from one owner to another owner. Such an act would be creating a second land description that has the potential to be in legal conflict with the first description, the original deed that successfully conveyed title. In the event of a conflict that ends up in court, what description would hold legal standing in a court of law? My opinion is that the court would favor the original description that successfully conveyed title.
In conducting the ALTA Survey, I surveyed the property identified by the record description. In retracing the perimeter of that record description, I searched for evidence on the ground and found physical monuments on the ground marking each of the four corners of the parcel identified by the record description. I then graphically reported the field measured distances and bearings to the physical monuments on my survey together with the record dimensions from the deed that conveyed title. The land parcel described in the deed is the same land parcel surveyed on the ground. The plat shown, or graphical map representation, depicts the findings on the ground of that area of land described in the deed. The field measurements support the legal description from the deed that provides title to the land.
The field location of the title land is graphically shown on the survey. It is the same piece of land. If the title land were to be surveyed ten times by ten people on ten different days, by the nature of performing physical measurements, there would be ten different opinions as to what the distances and bearings would be. This is no reason to rewrite the legal description ten more times for a piece of land that can successfully be conveyed ten times by holding with the original legal description without changes. If a deed has a call for a distance of 125 feet, a survey measurement of plus or minus half of a foot falls within an acceptable interpretation of that distance based on the accuracy of the described distance being to the nearest foot. If the distance was described as 125.0000000 feet, then a surplus of half of a foot would be way out of tolerance, but in this description, that is not the case. Minor differences in survey measurements reflect a degree of accuracy in field measuring, not ambiguity in the legality of the deed. Minor differences in survey measurements should not be a reason to reform a legal description and disrupt the chain of title. The field measurement measured for this survey show that the field measurements match the measurements in the legal description of title. To say otherwise is to misconstrue the evidence presented in the survey.
I believe it's more than the significant digits. There may be a senior call, or at least an implied senior call. (ie: if it doesn't call to a monument or to a senior parcel line, it might still be your professional judgment that it goes to a line common to another property). I have a hard time with trying to change the vesting deed's calls even if your measurement for that 125' line was, for instance, 127'. I still subscribe to the writing of the measured distance on your plat, with the record distance written parenthetically.
Let the lawyer write out his disclaimer and his "being the same as"'s
Now all they have to do is find someone who can comprehend what is is that you have written. They specialize in writing gobbledygoock, not actually reading and understanding legitimate English. They prefer to cause chaos rather than to try to understand complex thoughts.
Love it!!!
"Let the lawyer write out his disclaimer and his "being the same as"'s"
Sorry about changing a 12-letter word into an incorrectly spelled 13-letter word above. The last four letters, despite the eight preceding ones, lit up the censor gauge. Strange censor gauge.
The word gobbledygoo(c)k was coined in 1944 by Texas lawyer Maury Maverick, who expressed disdain for the "gobbledygoo(c)k language" of his colleagues. The word was inspired by the turkey, "always gobbledy gobbling and strutting with ludicrous pomposity."
Pretty good explanation. I would consider deleting the striked sentence below as really adds nothing to the explanationand it may be interpreted to imply that the found monuments could be superceded by retracement measuremnets alone.
Good job.
> The field location of the title land is graphically shown on the survey. It is the same piece of land. If the title land were to be surveyed ten times by ten people on ten different days, by the nature of performing physical measurements, there would be ten different opinions as to what the distances and bearings would be. This is no reason to rewrite the legal description ten more times for a piece of land that can successfully be conveyed ten times by holding with the original legal description without changes. If a deed has a call for a distance of 125 feet, a survey measurement of plus or minus half of a foot falls within an acceptable interpretation of that distance based on the accuracy of the described distance being to the nearest foot. If the distance was described as 125.0000000 feet, then a surplus of half of a foot would be way out of tolerance, but in this description, that is not the case. Minor differences in survey measurements reflect a degree of accuracy in field measuring, not ambiguity in the legality of the deed. Minor differences in survey measurements should not be a reason to reform a legal description and disrupt the chain of title. The field measurement measured for this survey show that the field measurements match the measurements in the legal description of title. To say otherwise is to misconstrue the evidence presented in the survey.
Love it!!!
After writing all that, I think I love Tom's advice too. Maybe it's just one of those things you write out just to get thoughts in order and feel better and finish it off by wadding it up and tossing it into File Number Thirteen.
Good point.
In my mind, it would in fact be best to have each transaction conveyed with a description based on the measurements made with each survey . This will in fact establish a history of the monumentation found.
Surveyors have a few books they like to use to help decide where the boundary is (such as Brown). Do lawyers have a few books that are favored for how to write a legal description?