That there is a tough one. I would strongly consider the curve matching the area. I would also strongly consider Kent's thought (if I got it right) that the curve would make sense meeting perpendicular to the street. Another consideration is whether all of the lots in the subdivision tend to have the same areas as each other. Does the neighbor parcel call to the area that would match the different direction of curve? If a couple or three of these elements seem to prove in a certain way, you might give that more weight. (do the land owners have a thought on it? That might also be a consideration to correct the ambiguity with a bla.
The fact is that the data can be interpreted two different ways which creates an ambiguity that may be interpreted differently by different professionals. If acceptance or any improvement indication on the ground can't solve it, I would suggest that a boundary-line-agreement be in order if you can get the neighbors to agree.
I tend to find that these kinds of dilemmas don't give me a definitive answer as to how to always find a solution to an old ambiguous deed. The greatest take-away I get is to make sure I don't make similar mistakes. Wattles even suggests that using curve "left" or "right" as being a bad idea. Another curve mistake is giving the "radial" direction of the radius. Many of use picture the "radial" direction as the point from where you're at to the radius point, whereas "radial" is defined as the direction from the radius point outward. I spent a long time once working out which way "radial" was in a description when the radius length was so large that it was impossible for me to detect from the sketch which way the curve was going. I had to run the long, complicated subdivision completely around to see which area it matched to more correctly....but, again, the radius was so large, the area difference was very minimal based on which way you called the curve.
conflicting calls is in Austin TX
Ah, so those two tracts that are the subject here are in Austin, Texas, both parts of Lot 6 of TADLOCK SUBDIVISION.
The southern portion of Lot 6 was conveyed by F. Ford Smith, Sr. to KAF Development Company by deed dated 12/31/1989 recorded in V. 11104 P.28 of the Travis County Official Public Records. In that conveyance, the 1.17 acre northern part of Lot 6 was described as an exception parcel by metes and bounds that describe a curve concave to the Northeast.
Have you determined that the 1.17 acre part of Lot 6 is in fact the senior parcel? My first impression is that there may not really be much of a problem at all if the two parts of Lot 6 were originally conveyed out of common ownership with the curve concave to the Northeast. What you're looking at is merely a fairly inconsequential scrivener's error that can be identified from prior conveyances.
conflicting calls is in Austin TX
> Ah, so those two tracts that are the subject here are in Austin, Texas, both parts of Lot 6 of TADLOCK SUBDIVISION.
>
> The southern portion of Lot 6 was conveyed by F. Ford Smith, Sr. to KAF Development Company by deed dated 12/31/1989 recorded in V. 11104 P.28 of the Travis County Official Public Records. In that conveyance, the 1.17 acre northern part of Lot 6 was described as an exception parcel by metes and bounds that describe a curve concave to the Northeast.
Good job!
DDSM:-)
conflicting calls is in Austin TX
The 1.103 ac. tract is also a portion of that certain tract of land described as "No. 5", a 2.347 acre tract of land, SAVE AND EXCEPT a certain 1.170 acre portion of said 2.347 acres described by metes and bounds (with a segment of the boundary a curving boundary concave to the Northeast), conveyed by the United Oil & Grease Co., Inc. to Ford Smith, Sr. and Harvey W. Smith, Jr. by Exchange Deed with Warranty dated 02/03/1988 recorded in Vol. 10609 at Pg. 155 of the Travis County Real Property Records.
If United Oil & Grease Co. retained the 1.170 acre tract, then that curving line, concave to the Northeast does make sense as the driveway to what may have been planned as an oil change shop, angling the front of the building toward US 183 and with the driveway meeting Angus Road on the nominal centerline of the intersecting street.
Kent- that's my guess. Look up those cross streets and drop by if you're up there. Royal mess. Anyways- it must have been an old site plan, as I found an old financing agreement that apparently dictates what everyone is holding- from 92. The icing is it was subdivided off a blown interpretation of the r.o.w. On the east. I found the 12" leaner that was held, then went back out, dug a foot down and found the corner that was platted and tied to by the subd. across the road (40 years ago).
Oh, and as a courtesy I called the firm doing the work for the adjoiner, letting em know they might maybe have a potential cloud to title- they didn't seem to care...
> Oh, and as a courtesy I called the firm doing the work for the adjoiner, letting em know they might maybe have a potential cloud to title- they didn't seem to care...
I did a little research earlier today (see below in this thread) and it looks as if the 1.170 ac. tract is probably senior and was originally conveyed with a curve concave to the NE. The 1.103 ac. tract appears to be a remainder that was originally conveyed as a larger parcel out of Lot 6 SAVE AND EXCEPT the 1.170 ac. desc. by metes and bounds with a curving boundary concave to the NE.
If I were working on that one, I'd trace title back to common ownership first. It looks to me as if all you probably are dealing with is a scrivener's error for any conveyances that describe the curving boundary as concave to the SW. In the early descriptions, the metes of the 1.170 ac. were recited clockwise with the curve breaking to the right. If you have a description of the remainder that was drafted later, what probably happened is the curve was still described as "to the right" even though the 1.103 ac. ran through the curve in the opposite direction. As title problems go, that isn't really much of one since the correct description can be readily determined from the prior conveyances in the chain of title.
conflicting calls is in Austin TX
thanks kent- valuable lesson learned yet again, and mea culpa time: i did find the older info without much trouble. lesson being always do the research yourself, even trusted underlings may not have or find adequate background.
i guess i'm more interested, though, in this point- the one that begs the hypothetical: what would control that call, were it the originating deed? you'd have to hold the direction of the curve, lacking any parole and/or observable evidence, no?
conflicting calls is in Austin TX
> i guess i'm more interested, though, in this point- the one that begs the hypothetical: what would control that call, were it the originating deed? you'd have to hold the direction of the curve, lacking any parole and/or observable evidence, no?
Fortunately, in land surveying there are almost never hypothetical problems encountered in practice. Virtually every land surveying problem has its own specific set of facts from which the proper solution flows.
The point is an important one: always look for the particulars in any case that distinguish it from the hypothetical.
conflicting calls is in Austin TX
I suggest that the error that makes most sense is the answer. Someone said that "you throw out mistakes in the description" (I think it was Duane Frymire). My first try, barring any other corroborating evidence, is to find the mistake. If changing the curve right to a curve left meets the area call, that is a good chance you found an error. Also look at the adjoining area. Yes, a bearing and distance might be a higher seniority in seniority of calls, but do what makes sense. If the area was a "mistake" is it an area that has an exact number typo (one digit off), or is it an area that has a 59 instead of 95 in it (switched numbers)? Or would changing NW to NE or changing "right" to "left" make for perfect harmony in the description?
conflicting calls is in Austin TX
> I suggest that the error that makes most sense is the answer.
I'd amend that to "makes the most sense in light of all of the circumstances of the transaction". In other words, look at the particulars of the case at hand. Ask about things that look odd. Those often provide the key to the problem.
In the case originally posted, a curving boundary concave to the Southwest looked genuinely odd and made no particular sense, whereas a curve concave to the Northeast in the same line seemed perfectly plausible as an alignment for a commercial driveway.
I certainly think it would be fully warranted to say that a description of the direction of the curvature, whether to the left or the right, was not one of the most certain elements of a description prepared by a non-surveyor. In the instant case, apparently the non-surveyor scrivener simply copied "curve to the right" from another metes and bounds description, that of the adjoining tract, and without realizing that by reversing the direction of the boundary traverse the curve no longer broke to the right.
Standard operating procedure when discrepancies in common boundaries between adjacent properties are encountered is to abstract the titles of both back to common ownership to determine (a) how the common boundaries were originally described and (b) which, if either, of the properties is senior by virtue of having been conveyed out of common ownership first.
