Thence west 456' to co rd and pob;
Thence west 350' to cl crk;
Thence n35w 502', but property line follows creek;
Thence leaving said cl crk e 300' to co rd;
Thence southerly with cl co rd to pob.
Now, I'm working on the rest of the property west of the creek.
I've surveyed the actual creek. Its got about 12 angle points. And acreage varies a little.
What do you think of the above procedure?
The actual survey has brgs and distances to the second, and 0.01'
The biggest problem I can see, is it leaves a non record of the specific location of the creek, at the time, the parcel was created.
I like removing ambiguity. The above method seems to leave more ambiguity.
What do you think?
Thanks, Nate
We go to the centerline of creek, we follow the creek and we leave the centerline of creek. It’s my opinion the property line is the centerline of creek. Prove me wrong.
The imagined (viewable) centerline of the creek is where the property line is over the next millenium. That is not the same as 28 courses that might fall within some number of feet of the true center line at randfom points selected by the surveyor on the date of the survey. The intent of the layman conveying the tract is to provide equal access to the creek from both sides thereof
To be fair, there are times when using the "28 courses" methodology must be used to satisfy some bureaucracy. That normally does not involve a transfer of fee simple rights.
Everything is to the nearest 0.01 feet and 1 arc-second. What a bunch of garbage!
LOL. A while back you pointed out how rules can get in the way. IMO this is another example. Standard of practice requirements for me would require the X number of course reported to the nearest 0.01 foot and 1 arc-second along with inter visible witness monument pairs every 1000 feet along the creek to define "thence with the center of the creek"
Part of my message that keeps getting left out was this description dates to the 1960's. We aren't talking about button pushers and AutoCad. Handheld scientific calculators were 10 years into the future at that time. The land involved was rural farmland with pasture on one side of the creek and crop land on the other. Neiher the low-value house on the pasture side of the creek nor the per-acre value of the two categories of farm land did not justify a crew from 120 miles distant to drag a 100' steel chain over hill and dale, let alone attempt to define the center line of a 30-foot wide creek that sometimes was only ten feet wide.
Anyone else remember four-post transits/theodolites and stiff-legged wooden tripods with a kinked cord and a lightweight plumb bob? Chaining pins attempting to stay some certain distance from the "true" property line with a 3-4-5 steel tape solution to move back onto line near the corners?
0.01 feet and 1 arc-second precision?????????????????? Especially when attempting to define a line that doesn't really exist in any meanful fashion for such a use.
Ok. I MUST appolagise to all in this thread. The op was from memory.
This is the deed. It was surveyed. It's the first piece OUT of this 40.
Here's a actual quote from the actual title:
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.....
This is what I'm working with.
The op was just from memory, and what client told me.
I'm sorry for the misleading opening post.
Above is my actual problem.
Nate
to a point also in the center of the branch
Natester - please post a pic of that "point" when you find it. I've always wondered what they looked like.
@nate-the-surveyor Boundary is center of branch and ambulatory. Given a tie bearing and distance to close the description and compute an acreage without measuring every twist and turn of the branch. Same sort of purpose as a meander line. Goes to the center and leaves from the center. No clear exclusionary language keeping the water for the grantor; nor limiting conveyance to uplands. The scrivener is merely telling us the branch is not necessarily straight between the tie line points.
please post a pic of that "point" when you find it. I've always wondered what they looked like.
Here's one of them...
🙂 Go figure!
Thanks everyone for your comments.
Nate
From, "Writing Legal Descriptions" Wattles, 1976
Page n137
If the deed specifically states, “to a point; thence northeasterly 12-% rods to a point; thence southerly. ..... (etc.)” with no tie to the creek or stream or river, then title does not carry to or into the creek, stream or river.® If, on the other hand, a call ties to the “bank of the creek, thence up the creek” with its meanders, fixes the boundary of the land at the margin of the creek, not at the middle thereof.”° Or, in the instance of land described as “beginning at a
Too tired to look this up, but if Wattles really said a call to the bank doesn't go to the center he is wrong about 85% of the time. Most states have well established case law to avoid creating ownerless strips of land (in this case the center of the creek). Many have statutes too.
"thence N 14°35'40" W 561.45 feet generally with the said branch" could be read one of two ways if it ever needs to go to court.
Place a comma before "generally" and the bearing and distance hold over the creek location. Place it after "generally" and the creek is the boundary.
Someone else said that if both sides are still in the family, ask them and hope you get agreement. document the answer and survey accordingly.
If you are going to rewrite the description to make it clear the creek is the boundary, make sure you include precise language to make that intent clear so that 30 years from now there isn't a surveyor asking "Is the creek the boundary or should I hold these twelve courses?".
The way I would write it would be... "... Thence along the center of said Kirkham Branch as approximated by the following twelve (12) courses: 1) N DD°mm'ss"W, xxx.xx ft, 2)... ; Thence leaveing the center of said Kirkham Branch..."
I don't like the word "generally" used in the description, but it's to the centerline. My 2 cents.
However...following intent is the goal, and you have the rare (at least for me) opportunity to get a definitive answer regarding intent from the owner(s) since both parcels are owned by the same (or at least mutual) interest. Ask the owners what they intended. Now, if dear old dad split the property and put both pieces in the estate but is now dead, you can still ask the current owners (members of the estate) and get a reliable answer on intent or at least the basis for a boundary line agreement. I think your last important step would be to write updated/modernized legal descriptions for both parcels that will provide sufficient language to clear this issue up, AND coach up the owners on how to get the descriptions on record.
Personally, I don't have a big problem with the legal...but is could be written a little better to say the least.
Removing Ambiguity is my goal.
Nate
