Do you routinely call and describe existing and set monuments in new M&B legal descriptions? If not, why?
Tom
> Do you routinely call and describe existing and set monuments in new M&B legal descriptions? If not, why?
>
> Tom
Yes, I do call for and describe existing and set monuments. Since you did not ask for the why when one does call for them, I'm not going to tell you. 😛
Yes, most definitely. That is how they become part of the record, in my opinion.
There are a few exceptions, but I would say 95% of the time, yes.
> Do you routinely call and describe existing and set monuments in new M&B legal descriptions? If not, why?
>
> Tom
Yes, always. That is required by law in North Carolina.
Larry P
In Florida...
Nope, never.
Not required.
I am curious. When many new parcels are created here they of course have a M&B description and also get a specific name i.g. - Lot 17 I.T. (Irregular Tract), Section 12, T9N, R7E. The legal description may or may not have calls to specific monuments depending upon the surveyor who writes it, but there are always the bearings and distances.
Suppose the surveyor who created Lot 17 I.T. in his M&B description also has "to a 1" iron pipe with a LS-504 plastic cap" after each bearing/distance call.
Ten years later another surveyor surveys Lot 17 I.T. and there are two corners missing. He sets 5/8" rebars with 2" aluminum caps at the missing corners. He records his survey as being "Lot 17 I.T., Section 12, T9N, R7E". Monuments found and set are shown on his plat. He is not required to rewrite the M&B description.
He also measures the lines slightly different than what is stated in the original M&B description. Does the difference in distances or the differences in monumentation void the original M&B description?
If not, why the emphasis on having the monument type described in the M&B description?
Yes always. Why should it matter if it is required or not ? It's not a real or complete legal description without the calls. If it can't be reproduced it's toilet paper.
Lot of good comments from the other pros for calling out the monuments in their land descriptions. Another very important reason to call out monuments recovered or established is: That it puts the retracer on notice as to what is the original monument or what has been placed later by someone else.
Suppose a third surveyor comes along and finds that the newer monuments don't fit the record. He knows that they have been set since the parcel was created because they don't match the record. If they are out bad enough, he can feel confident in rejecting them.
Not calling for the monuments in a description is akin to taking a broom and sweeping away your footsteps so no other surveyor can follow them.
Here's an idea. Why don't we all just set wood stakes at the corners? If you're not going to call for a monument, what difference does it make what's there?
> It's not a real or complete legal description without the calls.
In California we're required to file a map or Corner Record whenever we set a monument, so description calls to set monuments are the exception rather than the rule. Descriptions here are both real and complete without the calls.
I think this question arises more in non-recording states. There, I think it would be more important to make those calls.
In recording states, the R/S would show all that information. That is much more preferable IMHO. Let the description just cite the R/S in one short & sweet paragraph.
I've never been a proponent of making every monument call, as I feel it is just another potential source of ambiguity. It certainly makes the description not only wordy, but redundant. Not to mention a major source of typos for subsequent 3rd parties.
However, I have on occasion, especially if the original description had them included. In which case I'd often cite the original description, then write a "more particularly described as...." which did not include those monument calls. As opposed to introducing one of those infamous (previously recorded as....) comments after each line.
Record your surveys and this instantly becomes a non-issue
Perhaps my point has been missed. Do you completely rewrite the entire description if a distance or monument has changed? Nebraska is a mandatory plat recording state, so the surveyor can see on the plat what the new monument is for material or what the surveyor measured compared to the original distance. Rewriting the entire legal description to match watch you set or measured seems never ending to me.
Yes, we describe all monuments found and/or set while writing new legal descriptions. However, we do not rewrite existing descriptions to add these calls.
I used to. The title company kept deleting them when they rewrote the description.
I still do.
KS
Rewriting the description is like a third party rewriting the terms of a contract years after the fact. I'd simple show the measured distances vs. the record on a survey plat. I will not write a new metes and bounds and place it on a survey plat. If you do it will find it's way into the deed records and cause chaos.
If the land is being spit where a new description is necessary then I'd cite the record along the lines that remain (outside boundary) and give the new bearings and distance with calls to markers set along the new boundary lines. I also might cite the measured and any markers set or found (not called in original) along the unchanged lines but only as a measured reference along with the record. Then the owner would enter it into the deed records when he sells the new parcels.
The only other way to legitimately change the record is to have both owners enter into the deed records a new description that they jointly agreed to, a new contract by parties with the authority (landowners).
Some how we need to find the way to make the GIS accurate and still keep the deed records properly intact. It's a hard sell I know, so many want their deed to be mathematically perfect. Its not possible! You can''t modify the contracts of the past landowners. We could show the boundaries properly on maps, just recognize that the record is not a perfect way of locating boundaries. There is so much more involved. Recognition of reality is a very hard sell in our high tech world. Dream about utopia, it never gonna happen.
Yes, I do.
I call the monument out by description because
1) It is required in the standards of practice:
(4) Written description. A written description prepared by a professional land
surveyor shall be complete, shall accurately describe the actual boundary
survey and, contain the following information:
(e) A notation as to whether each monument was found or set;
(f) The identification of each tree utilized as a new corner monument,
including breast height diameter, species of tree, method of marking, and
a notation whether the tree is a record monument or a newly established
monument;
(g) A complete description of each "set" monument, to include, if appropriate,
the monument’s length, diameter, type of material and the identifying cap
or other identifier that was used;
(h) A complete description of each "found" monument that complies with the
following:
1. It is sufficiently accurate and adequate for subsequent identification
by another professional land surveyor; and
2. To the extent possible, the description shall include the monument’s
dimensions, type of material and the identification cap or other
identifier that was used;
and
2) In my area of practice, as in many others, it is not unusual for the older surveys to have been marked with just any type of scrap iron that could be found. With the number of times I have found the corner area marked by several different pieces of metal, I am always glad if the description states what was supposed to mark that corner. Given the inaccuracy of measurements that are sometimes found, the described monument is often the deciding factor between accepting the T-post driven most of the way down, the #5 rebar beside of it, or the 1" pipe between the two.
Like Jim said, calling the monuments is an exception rather than the normal practice here. That's unfortunate because sometime later, some measurement tech with a PLS at the end of his name might come along and find that the exact distances called in the description, as he measures them, fall some several hundredths from the existing mons of the survey the description was written from. But since neither the survey nor the monuments are specifically called in the description, Meas Tech, PLS argues that the monuments are "off" from the true corners.
To avoid that, unless there is some compelling reason not to, I always include a call to the monuments. If the survey has recorded by the time I am writing the descriptions, I will often call for it too.
> Rewriting the description is like a third party rewriting the terms of a contract years after the fact.
No it isn't.
As bad as surveys in the past have been here, there are two things you can do. Either write a new description for the next land transfer, or get corrected deeds filed for all the crap done previously. Lots of times, those old descriptions completely misrepresent where the property is located on the surface of the earth. It should be malpractice to regurgitate that nonsense. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's right.
> Rewriting the description is like a third party rewriting the terms of a contract years after the fact.
When you survey in Appalachia, you're going to rewrite a lot of descriptions. When you retrace a boundary that is described as:
Beginning at two poplars on the line of Gear, thence a southeast direction 75 poles to a 36" black oak, corner to Stephens, thence along the line of Stephens to the head of a drain, thence 25 poles to where Jones' horse stood, thence 90 poles to the beginning, containing 45 acres, more or less.
You would be doing your client an injustice by not rewriting that description, which, by the way, has been used in each of 6 conveyances since 1885. The bad thing is, that description is the norm.
To answer the question, yes, we do call out every monument in every description.