Creek titles

If the deed explicitly says the property line follows the creek (riparian) then the traverse only needs to be as detailed as to get an accurate area at that time.

It would be good if the deed indicated clearly that it was riparian and not to be fixed to the creek location as of the original date.

Agghh!  We don't know how to agree on where North is.  How on Earth could we all possibly agree on the best way to handle this situation?

It depends.  

Let the hair pulling begin..........................

@holy-cow north is up. Thats what my elementary teacher said. She always pointed to the ceiling so it has to be. Lol.

What does the adjoining deed call to ?  

It was 40 acres, or the SE1/4-NE1/4.

family estate. One of the kids got the above land, with house  about 4 acres.

This is what's left.

I'll post a pic of it. Later. 

N

So both sides of the creek are family? Spell out in the description you write what your holding and your done I would think. 

I did one where the owners wanted the line to run with the creek. I described running with the creek and used some language to spell out the lines did not move with the creek in the future. I tried to make it abundantly clear as to the intentions. 

G

ya got a creek, ya got a road, and two exactly due east-west lines, all you have to figure out is the POB, simple.  

Get it monumented, recorded, no one will dispute what you did. 

Unless you mess it up. 

I don't work riparian legalities much.

I think it's clear what is needed.

But, it bothers me a bit that a modern surveyor would use this (although legal), antiquated mechanisms to avoid proper survey of creek.

However, I can see the practical side of it.... Via accretion, and revulsion.

Slow moving creek, boundary moves with it. Big move, in one year, or event, it stays put.

Part of Arkansas is east of the Mississippi River, due to this very thing.

Thanks, N

Any evidence of a previous survey on the part not in the creek?  

OK, I have the deed in front of me.

Here is how it reads:

.....and run thenc S 89°51' 14" W 592.40 feet along the southerly line of the said forty acre tract to a RR spike set in the centerline of a graveled road; said spike being the POINT OF BEGINNING, crossing the graveled road and continuing along the southerly line of the SE 1/ 4 of the NE 1/ 4, run thence S 89"51'14" W 260.50 feet to a point in the center of Kirkham Branch, leaving the forty acre line run thence N 14°35'40" W 561.45 feet generally with the said branch to a point also in the center of the branch, leaving Kirkham Branch run thence N 56°43' 16"E 261.55 feet to a RR spike set in the center of a graveled road, thence following the said graveled road centerline the following courses; run thence S 16°23'19"E 76.01 feet to a point.....

I've included the surrounding language, for the benefit of others seeing that language.

When I started this survey, I ASSUMED that the "N 14°35'40" W 561.45 feet" line would actually go down between the banks.

Here is what I found:

One of my goals as a surveyor is to REMOVE ambiguity. In this case, I may ask the client what was meant by this transaction. And, perhaps rewrite this description, to basicly clean it's meaning up completely.

Nate

Here is a screen shot, to make this easier.

Here are pics of the creek.

Thanks for looking, and voicing your opinion.

Nate

One of my first experiences with a creek boundary I wrote a description that included a line something like "along Brown's Creek the following 28 courses."

Within a few days the attorney managing the transaction copied my description into a deed, leaving out all reference to Brown's Creek! From that point forward a did not put riparian courses into a description, but I did show them on the survey plat, often in a table with reference to the date of survey.

I don't see any good reason to change the current description.

When you have calls to the cl of the creek and the cl of the road the only relevant thing is the bearings along the lines that take you from one to the other as both are where they are and the creek is subject to moving through accretion and avulsion.  Distances to the hundredth are not necessary as the distance will yield to the location call.

The description is ambiguous. Is the creek the line or the course given? Could be argued either way.

"generally along the creek" is asking for trouble.  

It should be either "Along the creek {xxx}, which flows to a point [bearing and distance] from the preceding course"

where {xxx} is either "a riparian boundary" or "as it flows as of the date of this deed"

or else  "[bearing and distance] to a point in the middle of the creek and thence ... " leaving out any mention of how it flows

That's awesome, you got it.

That's an easy one, you even found the RR spikes. 

"generally along the creek" is asking for trouble.  

Thats what I have tripped over... a latent ambiguity.

N

Did you ask the where their boundary is ? 

@Gary_g

Not yet. They are out of town right now. It's a family estate.

It's down in the woods. I think they WANT the creek to be the boundary.

But, I have 3 solutions.

1.) Use the creek, with my dimensions.

2.) Use the IDENTICAL words, of the previous desc.

3.) Bring up the issue, and ask for resolution. And, re-write the desc to the 4.377 ac parcel, removing the ambiguity, and make it HOW THEY WANT.

Number 3 is planned.

Nate

What would Wattles say?