The geometry of the plat does not allow for the call of 190' from the the intersection of the SPRR and the westerly line of Plymouth and for that line to also be 175 westerly of Plymouth as it is lot 6's east line coincident with the west line of lot 7. There is some confusion as to what line is the right of way line for SPRR- The railroad land is now a State Highway that is not accessible for surveying. Any evidence of the railroad has long since been destroyed.My question centers on the written record and it proper evaluations. Thanks for your comments- Also I am looking for chapter and verse in some recognized text. thanks for your help and happy new year
The last call also can't go Northwesterly 148'. It must go Northeasterly and I believe it is less than 148 feet. Perhaps the Northwesterly call is not the only typo in the description. This one lot is unlikely to determine the ROW line you ask about. Other evidence of the location of this whole block is much more likely to lead to the location.
Question - Would 190' put you near the western edge of the travel surface of Marengo Road at the time that area was developed?
The call for the intersection specifically notes the right of way on the railroad, but the "westerly line of Plymouth Avenue" might be interpreted as the travel surface instead of the right of way.
Why can you not survey within the highway right-of-way? We do it whenever we need to do so.
THANK you @HOLY-COW! My question is about the written records and what controls. I have a plat that I can place on the ground that does not conflict the States Fenced location of the highway right of way. If I have a call for a lot and block that is definite and locatable is that superior to to the call for to and along a right of way whose metes conflict with the called for lot and block. My view is that the platted lot dimensions are to the SPRR land and control- looking at the highway right of mapping one sees two lines. I do not see what basis I would have to go beyond the the plated sidelines to get to a curved right of way as it apparently would embrace land not owned by the original subdivider.
@jon-payne there is very good evidence of where Plymouth is- 190' would push the lot line west and then it would not fit the call to 175 west of plymouth -this is the width of lot 7 thanks Jon
Chicken and egg question. What year was the RR laid out compared to what year the subdivision was laid out. Has the RR ever expanded from it's original limits?
I have a case of a city street that was widened twice but only to the north in each case. There are tracts that say their south line is the north line of Galveston Street but their south lines are not the same.
@holy-cow I appreciate you thoughts- I have included the 1867 subdivision and it show a rail road. but my question really centers on the legal description that instead of leaving well enough alone has an additional metes and bound description that appears to conflict with the platted subdivision-
Are the buildings in this area typically built to the lot line? It looks like 115 Sagamore was built on the west lot line (Lot 7), 107 Sagamore was built on the east lot line (Lot 7). If that is the case, the fence at the southwest corner of 115 Sagamore is about 190' from the east edge of what looks to be sidewalk.
Depending on what else was found in the field evidence, I would consider that "westerly line of Plymouth Avenue" does not mean the right of way but instead refers to the physical roadway.
Have you pulled older copies of your deed and researched the adjoiner's deed? I would agree with you that the supplied description is poorly written. I can never understand why someone would want a meets & bounds description for a platted lot, but I have had numerous attorneys require it on drawings over the years.
Looking the document along with the plat, the only real conflict in platted vs deed courses is the call for 149'8" which is most likely a scrivener's error along the way. The western line the meets and bounds is coincident with the western platted line of Lot 6. There are no platted distances given along the RR R/W but running the math on the plat put the POB ~185.4' from the POC and 142.15' from the SW corner of Lot 6. There is no real way to get the POB 190' from the POC and 148' from the SW lot corner. Unless the adjoining deeds give reason to believe the lines were moved at some pont, I would hold the platted lot.
Once you verify that the eastern line is in fact the platted line, I would ditch the meets and bound in the description and file a RS with a good narrative.
HC,
As far as not surveying in the R/W, you're not in Kansas anymore. It is a CLTRANS thing, you cannot work within a controlled access highway (nor would I want to try to dodge traffic in I-80 for that matter). If requested, CLTRANS will tie in monuments within the R/w leaving reference points in a location you can get to.
There is another problem with that deed. If the first 3 calls are correct then the last call of NW'ly 148 feet is not possible. It needs to be NE'ly.
@john-putnam thanks I have a recorded map. If it is the intent is to convey lot 6 and lot 7 and lot 5 then there is no metes and bounds may change the original map unless that is the intent as in lot 6 and a portion of lot 7 etc. The adjoiners do not refer to the the R\R row they call to Palmetto Street- Anyway It is my understanding that a call for a map would be controlling as opposed to any other description included in the same deed- Just wondering what others mileage is
There is a Minnesota case about choosing between a plat and metes and bounds, Cannon v. Emmans, 44 Minn. 294, 46 NW 357; see attached.
Certain out-of-state commercial lenders used to insist that I write a metes-and-bounds description when surveying a platted parcel. Perhaps that happened here, and then the description got messed up in being transcribed.
I would agree with you that the most probable case is that the intent is to transfer 'Lot 6'. The provided meets and bounds poorly written and contains multiple ambiguities. My point was that it is sometime prudent to look at older transfers of the property (recorded deeds and not just the map) to see how the property has been historically described and to review the adjoiner's description to make sure there was not transfer between the two. Considering the value of property in this area, the time spent is well worth it to all parties. Once you get it verified, I would record a survey with an explanation of your thought process to get it in the public record and supply your client with a corrected deed sans meets and bounds.
I am looking for chapter and verse in some recognized text.
I have my 6th Edition of Boundary Control and Legal Principles here. On page 324, et seq, there is a discussion of the hierarchy of calls under the heading of "ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OF CONFLICTING TITLE ELEMENTS".
@danemince it would appear to me that current physical locations and those that can be established (the road that you mention) will be superior to the written documents for a few reasons, one being the duration of current occupation and another being the possibility to aggravate the status quo.
As far as not surveying in the R/W, you're not in Kansas anymore. It is a CLTRANS thing, you cannot work within a controlled access highway (nor would I want to try to dodge traffic in I-80 for that matter). If requested, CLTRANS will tie in monuments within the R/w leaving reference points in a location you can get to.
@john-putnam I'm sure this is probably a thing, so I'll take your word for it. You could also get an encroachment permit from CALTRANS, which is what we have. As for dodging traffic... thank God for offset monuments.