today I read a legal description that used the word "covering"
The calls were N 90 00 00 W COVERING 500 feet. Not sure if I've seen that terminology around here before. Just curious if Y'all have.
BTW the legal doesn't close for over 100'+. I've already called the title company to start the discussion on this, since this is an ALTA survey. It's to bad because the property is only four sides.
The only way in which I've heard covering refer to a distance is in a sentence like: "He was able to cover 20 miles in one day on horseback."
I've heard usage along those lines, but rarely.
> the legal doesn't close for over 100'+.
Dropped call so the parcel was supposed to have another 100 ft side? Scrivener's error changing one distance by 100 ft? Something else?
Bill,
All good questions. I just got the legal description, and typed it in today, so I haven't sat down with it to see if there is anything obvious. I haven't checked it to prior deeds as of yet, or checked the adjoiners.
Here is the legal:
beginning at a point on the westerly
boundary line of the property on a course bearing S 28°55' 00" E
covering 348.24 feet; then easterlY on a course bearing N 61°05' 00" E
covering 558.65 feet; then northerly on a course bearing N 26°43'58" W
covering 316.92 feet; then westerlY on a course bearing S 58° 00' 16" W
covering 485 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.68 acres,
more or less.
I don't think a mistake in any single angle/bearing or distance would explain it, and swapping a pair of distances doesn't seem to do it either.
Unless there is something obvious on the ground or the drawing about the shape, I'd have no ideas.
> ...since this is an ALTA survey. It's to bad because the property is only four sides.
Sounds like a simple solution to an ALTA. They provide the description, you provide your opinion. All based on the provided information. Their rules, not mine.
Now if a John Q were to hand me a description like that and wanted a 15 ft setback staked - I'd be real concerned. Especially about my fee to get things sorted to keep the neighborhood in harmony and CYA.
I've seen "...about 3 smokes...", and "... till the horse needed a drink...". But never a "..covering 500 ft..." Apply the appropriate decimals, and I'd say you have at least a hundred ft lee way in any direction.
Have fun
The closure does not indicate where the error lies.
I've seen a compass survey close that bad in some areas that have magnetic interference. I would not believe it to be a compass survey because the bearings are quoted into the seconds.
It reminds me of a description written from combining information from multiple documents that do not have the same bearing source in common.
The use of covering before the distance could make the distance to serve as the controlling factor above the bearing as if the maker knew the bearings contained error.
I have one on the table that has some common factors as that. I found all of the monuments around the property and the measured distance along all boundaries fit within one foot of the call to at least one of the described boundary calls and not the adjoining call. The bearings of the calls are as much as 9° different.
You done went and found yourself a good'n too.
😉
