When our office receives new deeds, we then draft the lines onto the sectional plats to update them. The deed came in that shows the parcel as being the West 80 acres of Lot 30 of Section 18 and also said it is also known as the West Half of the SE Quarter of Section 18. We already had the imaginary line on the plat dividing the SE Quarter.
Seeing that this was two distinctly different descriptions, we contacted the parties involved and explained how the east line of the West 80 acres of Lot 30 would in all liklihood not be on the 1/16 line dividing the quarter and further explained that if they wanted to convey the West One Half of the SE Quarter that would place the boundary line on the 1/16 line, but the acreage would be more or less than 80 acres according to survey. Okay. They would file a corrective deed.
We receive the corrective deed and they still wanted to convey the west 80 acres of Lot 30. There has not been a survey on the ground marking the 1/16 corners, but through coordinates I already have on the section corners and calculating the 1/16 line, the West 80 acres of Lot 30 would place a line 5.13' east of the 1/16 line if this ever gets surveyed in the field. This is what they will get, but they have it in their head that half of a quarter section is 80 acres no matter what and trying to explain that it isn't, didn't get through to them. I suspect an attorney was involved with this.
********
Lemme guess..they've already conveyed the property?
That's how it goes down here in Oklahoma. The Title Company pulls the trigger, THEN the attorneys try to point the barrel.
I get similar jobs frequently. Most of the time I prepare a survey, they kick it around and then try to decide which one they want...acreage OR aliquot.
good luck
It sounds like, gleaning from how you described it, their "intent" is to convey the West 1/2 of the SE-1/4 of the section. They have ambiguous language in their deed, and it seem like you can kind of deduce the intent from how they worded the primary part of the description and marrying it with the "also known as" part. If you took the dimensions of the section, as shown on the original plat, would you be able to come up with the West 1/2 of the SE-1/4 as being 80 acres? Is it absolutely wrong to come up with a description based on the original government survey using the published acreage of that original?
Just some thoughts,
Tom
What is Lot 30, who, where and when was it created? Was the subject land ever sold and possession taken using either of those descriptions in the past? Without researching the chain of title to find out what descriptions were used and when, I don't even know how the parent tract was described when created. Lot 30 of what? needs to be made clear in both of those documents. Happy research.
jud
I liked the description the way it was. 80 acres according to the original survey. You can't get the thought through to them that the lines are different for a good reason. They shouldn't be.
Since it's Section 18, Lot 30 appears to be an aliquot lot. You would need the original notes or plats to determine it's original dimensions.
I don't think you're giving us enough information to make the call.
Playing the INTENT card is always best
In the past I have resorted to calling the Grantor and asking them just that in a general conversation about the transaction
Been called out by real estate people, lawyers and title people before for doing so and I always ask them why are they fighting this, Is it your intent to confuse the process?
Is it just my observation why this would occur or do some people try to make more work for themselves by causing these problems to save calling a surveyor in to do it right.
0.02
We (you) may need more information before recommending a proper way to proceed.
For example, 30-40 years ago in a mountainous area northeast of here, someone broke quite a few sections into 5, 10, 20, 40 acre recreational lots and sold them using a similar method of description: "Lot 89 of XXXXXX Subdivision, also being the S1/2SE1/4NW1/4SE1/4 of Section XX........"
Well, long story short, they had all the lots surveyed and monumented (Yippeee). Trouble is that the out of state survey firm missed nearly all of the existing GLO corners, many by 100's of feet (OOPS). As you can imagine, quite a CF was created.
Generally, doubly described parcels don't work out well in the end.
With their logic one could also call in the north 80 acres, or the east 80 acres, or the south 80 acres of Lot 30. Except, of course, if there aren't 80 acres to begin with, which would be about half the time.
Lot 30 is described as the SE Quarter of Section 18, except Lot 14 and Lot 29. No meets and bounds description.
Basically what I was trying to say here is that the original warranty deed contained two descriptions and they thought they were the same. The intent was to cut off the W 1/2 of the SE 1/4. They assumed that was supposed to be 80.000 acres. We explained that it was probably slightly more or less. So they went with the East 80 acres of Lot 30 because they had it in their head that they needed 80.00 acres.
So now we created two new lots and neither have the 1/16 line as the boundary line which I think is what they were trying to achieve in the first place.
> I suspect an attorney was involved with this.
:good:
Nobody could do a better job at creating false understanding and confusion.
Give Them A Thorough Description
...."an area of 80.000 acres, being the West half of Lot 30 and the westerly 5.16' of the East Half of Lot 30."
Tell them you have to set the 1/16 corners as well as the Lot corners 5.16' to the East.
They may then possibly get the picture.
What scares me is the statement "if this ever gets surveyed in the field."
Paul in PA
Give Them A Thorough Description
Lot 30 being described as the SR Quarter of Section 18, excepting lots 18 and 29, so the West Half containing 80 acres would only add confusion. "The Westerly 80.00 acres of Lot 30 as located within the SE Quarter of Section 18, the Easterly line thereof being parallel to the Westerly line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, T 456 N, R 762 W of the Missing Meridian". I would not set, nor is it necessary to set the N-S Sixteenth line.
jud
Give Them A Thorough Description
There was nothing wrong with the original description that described the west 80 acres as also being an aliquot part. That description left no question of where the east line of the tract is except in the mind of some surveyors. The original plat no doubt called for 80 in the W 1/2 as did the deed. And the first deed further made clear it was talking about the aliquot part. Now surveyors will be chasing down the west 80.000000000000000000 acres forever.
No! The West Half Plus 5.13' = 80 Acres
It seems a few of you are creating a description with a patent ambiguity.
Only the West half of Lot 30 can be described as an aliquot part.
What remains is the East half of Lot 30 excepting Lots 14, 29 and the westerly 5.13'.
In fact however it may not be 80 acres, which can only be determined by a actual survey.
Paul in PA
Negative, Linebender
You either have an aliquot part or you have 80 acres.
Very, very seldom do you have both.
In this case there is sufficient evidence that you cannot have both.
Paul in PA
Give Them A Thorough Description
> There was nothing wrong with the original description that described the west 80 acres as also being an aliquot part. That description left no question of where the east line of the tract is except in the mind of some surveyors. The original plat no doubt called for 80 in the W 1/2 as did the deed. And the first deed further made clear it was talking about the aliquot part. Now surveyors will be chasing down the west 80.000000000000000000 acres forever.
I agree. However, lets not pretend that surveyors wouldn't be trying to chase down the "true-theoretical" 16th line forever either.
It sounds to me like the description may not be the only problem..............
Once upon a time
In PLSSia 80, 40, 20, 10 and 5 acres called out in a deed was always assumed to mean aliqout. It still is by most except surveyors. Now surveyors are trying to figure out how to educate everyone when it is they that need to study history a little more.
Where are the dimples?
It is still indeterminant until we can find the four dimples at the tract corners.
