interesting situation here (that i can't believe, in hindsight, i haven't run into before).
platting a resub of the south half (tract 1, for reference) of an existing lot. north portion (tract 2, for reference) was sold off by m&b about 10 years ago. both sites are currently under development (middle of a large urban area).
in the deed for tract two, a call is made over and across the parent tract along a "curve to the left". easy enough. problem comes when you get to "and containing 1.17 acres, more or less", which, as you probably guessed already, only jives if you configure it as a curve to the right. now, clearly all things in a vacuum i'm holding the curve to the left. however (and this is somewhat amazing to me) at least 3 different surveyors over the past decade have held this curve incorrectly, i'm guessing based upon intended area, various site plans, or whatever. clearly all parties involved understand this lot line to exist as a curve to the right- ponds, drainage, and parking are being designed (by different parties on each lot) holding this "incorrect" interpretation of the curve.
HOWEVER AGAIN- this, of course, has myriad other complicating issues. first and foremost: the description in the deed for tract two was either written by a half-literate office tech who'd never dug a rod out of the ground or (as i suspect) written by a title company clerk who was copying somebody else's original, as there is no cert nor stamp nor even surveyor's name on the deed. add to that the various aforementioned o-t-g guys who've surveyed various portions of this original lot left a nice little pin cushion at the NE corner of tract 1, which just happens to be the SE corner of tract 2 AND the PC of this dubious curve.
my inclination is to tell the client to get a corrected deed or else a bndy line agmt before we proceed with trying to plat it. in any event, after taking a year off and just being back in the saddle a few weeks it hasn't taken me long to get back to my old tricks: namely, throwing large wrenches in people's plans...
You Survey It Correctly, And The Correction Deed Follows
In general it is only neccessary to involve adjoiners in a correction deed if there was mistaken occupation. Given that it appears no development has yet occurred the lot owner can file a corrected self to self deed.
I have situations where the error was not in a part of a description but in the failure of the description to include multiple tracts. In that case you go back to the prior Grantor to correct it.
Paul in PA
As you start hinting at, there is a lot of evidence to gather yet before you can make an informed judgement. However, in the hierarchy of evidence, area is the least important. Keep digging.
One licensed land surveyor whose work I often checked almost always got the curve direction wrong. You probably already decided and checked everything, but I would check if the curve direction matches what it looks like it should be based on the tangent in and the tangent out. if it makes a deflection angle to the right when you run to the PI, then I would tend to think it was meant to be to the right. If one solution matches both the area and the logical direction of the curve, I would tend to go that way. Do they also have a sketch of the curve? If so, which way is it shown there? Does the description say "thence on a 'tangent' curve to the right or left? My goal would be to try to find an apparent blunder before I resorted to some hierarchy of calls. (big question: what drove the need for a curve? is it paralleling something or does it need to match a tangent in/tangent out?
I'm sure you checked the logical solution since you posted about it. I suspect that some of the guys that got it wrong, just typed it in verbatim and didn't think about it.
i mention area only because it appears to have driven subsequent intent on both sides- which is to say the interpretation of that curve has driven the intent. flipping the curve yields an approx. 20% swing in land area of each lot.
were it anything near a tangent curve i could see that. i read it probably 18 times just to make sure i wasn't nuts. i can't even begin to assume what the intent of the curve was in the first place (other than it probably came from some long dead site plan).
to be honest, what first threw up red flags for me were the guys setting forms for a detention pond wall in the area in question.
Mistakes can be thrown out; absurd results point to mistakes; the deed must be interpreted as a whole document and not piecemeal; rules of construction are not law and should be rearranged if one of lower standing makes more sense (is a more likely indication of intent)under the particular facts; a survey unchallenged for 10 years and agreed with twice over that time is prima facia evidence of its correctness and you will need clear and convincing evidence it is incorrect.
Just sayin. I agree the situation should be clarified one way or another.
Curves Are To Connect Other Curves Or Tangents
An incorrect or incomplete curve call is a Patent Ambiguity. The surveyor weighs all the evidence and renders a solution.
There are five major elements to a curve on a plane; arc length, radius, Delta angle, chord bearing and chord distance. Using all five is still insufficient to describe the curve in a description. Using curve to the right or left may seem a sufficient addition, but right or left is not easily seen or defined on a plan.
Since a description may go in either direction around a lot, a curve to the left today, may be a curve to the right tomorrow.
What can be seen on a plan is "concavity".
A "curve concave to the Southeast" unambiguously indicates direction to the curve radius point. No matter in which direction around a parcel the description is written, concavity remains constant.
Paul in PA
here it is- as everyone (including the appraisal district) seems to interpret it.
classic civil office subdivision. nothing to dictate logic, indicate intent, or otherwise to control that variable of the call.
Curves Are To Connect Other Curves Or Tangents
ah, but it was a complete call, lacking any ambiguity. how i wish there were some ambiguity, or old man johnson's peach tree in the way, or something. it's a patently unambiguous "along a curve to the left" in a clockwise description (i was even hoping a little bit that mistake was made- anything to cast a doubt). as is, it's a plain as paper call to the left, based upon nothing apparent, except everybody since has universally accepted it otherwise.
Curves Are To Connect Other Curves Or Tangents
It seems to be to me that there in an inherent "assumption" that all curves come off a tangent, have defined radii, and close on a tangent. Not the case in more situations than I'd like to remember. Is there any reference to a chord bearing & distance, or a B & D to the radius point?
Don't make it harder than it is. If there are all these "past surveyors" holding oddball data, well.... maybe that's something to consider. Have you contacted any of them? Maybe the person who wrote that legal was standing on the NW corner and it really is a curve to the left from his point of view.
Not enough information provided IMO.
Well, what about the next course in the description? Is that correct with a curve to the right or a curve to the left? If the area and the next call work using a curve to the right, then the preponderance of evidence is pointing to a mistaken call on the curve. I just find it hard to believe there is not more to this. Do you have the original description from the creation of the parcel?
yes, but like i said, it's fraught with enough simple grammatical errors to make me suspect. the calls are all proper and adequate at face value, POB is clearly defined, bounds are defined, this call happens to be the first (of two) that is an "over and across", not bounded by any "with"s, "along"s, or otherwise, just curve data and a b&d. the tract closes, regardless of which deflection you choose, the only variable being area.
ironically, we were hired to clean up a rat's nest of problems (the last surveyor completely ignored the curve and just ran a chord across the call!). now i'm coming in and telling them, basically, that there's a whole other problem to consider.
Curves Are To Connect Other Curves Or Tangents
it's a standard curve call around these parts- along a curve to the left, having a radius of x, arc length of x, and a chord which bears x.
and yeah, i'd like to have a little more info too- the original description is, for all intents and purposes, untraceable- just a re-typed copy in a deed without any reference to somebody who might shed some light over a six-pack.
did i mention a pet peeve is title companies retyping perfectly good descriptions, omitting the surveyor's info, and inserting them in deeds? i can't count how many headaches i've inadvertently caused fellow surveyors over the years because all i had was one of these anonymous legals typed by a title company.
> here it is- as everyone (including the appraisal district) seems to interpret it.
>
> classic civil office subdivision. nothing to dictate logic, indicate intent, or otherwise to control that variable of the call.
>
>
>
Except considering the relation to the intersecting street, is that curve what someone had in mind for an entrance driveway? Ordinarily, I'd think that a subdivision scheme that odd was tied to a site plan someone had in view at the time.
Area In Deed Is Not A Variable...
If one interpretation meets the specified area and the other does not, there can be no question of which is right.
Paul in PA
A Curve As A Continuation Of A Tangent Is One Thing...
A curve out of the blue is another.
A curve can be wrongly called if along the way someone changes the direction of the description and fails to reverse the curve.
Often the tangent continuation after the curve can give sufficient information to correct the call.
A subdivided lot description does not stand alone. The surrounding lot descriptions must be given equal weight, including their areas.
Paul in PA
Are We To Assume You Exhausted All Courthouse Resources?
Because it sure does not sound like it.
Paul in PA
Perhaps
Perhaps the original draft of the description ran counterclockwise. Then some brilliant person announced that it must be reversed. The scrivener reversed everything, but did not realize the difference between a curve to the left and a curve to the right, assuming them to really be the same thing.
Or, someone simply didn't know left from right in the first place. Many, many people are cursed with that lack of perception.
Perhaps, And For Instance
Picture a plat, North is up (what a novel concept), one has a tangent line West to a PC for a curve, concave to the North. Following that curve one would be turning to the right, however in looking at the plat one is still heading West, i.e. to the left of the plat.
Makes sense doesn't it.
Hpwever in this instant case, the curve is non tangent and the description includes chord elements, thus insuring the parcel closes whether the curve is to the left or the right. We must then look to other documents or evidence.
Paul in PA
Curves Are To Connect Other Curves Or Tangents
I think I see the problem now. That curve data is insufficient for a non-tangent curve for those with deed plotting software. I've run into this before. The default options are length and radius usually (hey it only takes two pieces to define a curve), and the chord is useless as well since it's the same either way, likewise the delta. These softwares always plot to the right from the last point by default. The closure report comes up correct, so no problem suspected. Once there's a site plan in the works that closes, nobody scrutinizes the thing against the deed much.
Giving right or left, or concave convex in some direction does nothing for these tech. savvy folks.
The description should be worded thus: thence along a curve with radius "-"654 or whatever. Most of the programs require a negative radius to go left.
Note to self: Start using negative radius for curves to the left instead of or in addition to direction, gotta adjust to the times. And for non-tangent the other piece would have to be the chord bearing and distance. Don't include anything else or they might have problems still; just those two pieces and they should get it right with their software (unless they omit the negative as some kind of mistake).
Good job catching the problem. Most of us (well, me anyway) wanted to believe it was not a problem because it had passed through so many hands.
