The post a few days ago concerning the term "legal description" reminded me of a project I had a couple of years ago. I was asked to rewrite the description, and I declined. I had to look the correspondence up to see if the title company had used the term "legal" or "description". Just as I thought I remembered, they had asked me to "rewrite the legal".
Here's a neutered drawing of the property:
Here is an excerpt from the deed description, created about 1939 or 1940, I believe:
....beginning at the point the north line of said SE/4 intersects
the north R/W line of State Highway No. 19,
thence west along that north line to a creek,
thence southerly and westerly along the said creek to the
intersection of the north R/W line of said State Highway No. 19,
thence north and east along said R/W line to the point or place of beginning.
My drawing reflected my survey. I found the north line of the SE/4....traversed the creek, etc. The drawing of course had bearings and distances on all the legs of the boundary that I surveyed.
A few weeks after I had turned the survey over to the bank (my client), a title company called and wanted me to "rewrite the legal". They wanted to see some numbers and bearings on a deed. I declined. My feelings were that the description was not ambiguous, and in fact, might be what I call the "perfect description". There's only one place that property can be.
After that I received a request (from the title company's underwriter) to update my survey and certify that a description they supplied (someone had written it with my survey in front of them, complete with bearings and distances) was the same and exact property as the description I posted above. I still couldn't do it.
I explained to them my reasoning was the creek was the boundary in the original description. The 'new' description made no mention of the creek. I do remember one of the folks I talked with told me "they couldn't issue title insurance with property lines moving around"....
I don't know what ever became of the project, but I'll bet you money there that property now has a 'new' description. I think that's a shame...imho that was the "Perfect Boundary Description".
The original description seemed adequate to me. I certainly could'nt rewrite the original just for the sake of rewriting it.
When a bank is involved, the acreage is a factor. They want to be able to put numbers on paper to equal dollars per acre.
The title company does not cover acreage and the creek boundary changes thru time and as you stated, the description as exists is correct.
Report the facts, period (facts for the bank are numbers, facts to title are correct descriptions).
:snarky:
> My drawing reflected my survey. I found the north line of the SE/4....traversed the creek, etc. The drawing of course had bearings and distances on all the legs of the boundary that I surveyed.
Obviously, I've surveyed in Texas for decades, so I don't see any problem whatsoever with modernizing the lame original description. You retain all of the original calls, such as the call for the POB to be on the North line of the highway at the intersection of the known tract line (reciting ties to the corners of the known tract and to the evidence from which the R-O-W was located, of course, which demonstrate that you didn't just use a ouija board to conclude you were at the intersection of those lines). But you also recite, say, the actual meanders of the creek.
For example, in what way is:
>Thence with the meanders of the centerline of XYZ Creek the courses and distances (recited for the purpose of approximate area calculation) numbered (2) through (7), inclusive, as follows:
>(meander calls omitted)
any different than just the bare call for the creek, aside from giving the means to definitely identify the creek?
I mean, in Oklahoma, isn't the call for the meanders of the creek a call for a riparian boundary that will control over calls for course and distance in any event?
Ditto the rest. If your metes and bounds description is properly drawn up, it will contain all the controlling calls of the original as well as the subordinate calls for course and distance that do provide some useful information nonetheless. I'll grant you, it takes real skill to write a metes and bounds description that preserves the controlling elements while working in the modern details disclosed by a resurvey, but isn't that why surveyors are licensed?
Personally I wouldn't put any calls in for the creek, but I would call a plus or minus call to the centerline of the creek on the north line of the SE 1/4, and for the highway right-of-way line.
> Personally I wouldn't put any calls in for the creek, but I would call a plus or minus call to the centerline of the creek on the north line of the SE 1/4, and for the highway right-of-way line.
Well, that wouldn't work since the boundary actually follows the sinuous meanders of the creek which the courses and distance along those meanders merely approximate. There is no way that comes to my mind in this case to correctly describe what is a riparian boundary without actually calling for ... the actual waterway, in this case the creek.
BTW, I trust we all know that by "riparian boundary" we mean a boundary that, among other things, may move gradually over time as the processes of erosion and accretion shift the channel. The calls for course and distance along the creek as it existed at some time do not fix the boundary in that position for all time, but merely give a snapshot of where the creek was on the date of that survey and of the contents of the tract at that time.
I'm with Kent. I think by taking the position you did, you helped destroy the "perfect description".
"I explained to them my reasoning was the creek was the boundary in the original description. The 'new' description made no mention of the creek."
Yeah, that's why the surveyor should write the new description if those that control the transaction insist on re-writing it. If the surveyor does not feel able to write a sufficient description they can always contract it out to one who writes them regularly rather than leave it to someone else in the process that knows even less.
We have to remember we don't control what goes in the deed. We can only advise and keep a record of it. You could have written your advise not to change it and written a new one that complies with the original. And, there might be a different intent than what was in the old description. Maybe the grantor owned both sides of the creek and wanted to only grant to the current center. They certainly have the right to do that.
I have been told that deals would not close unless I changed something in the description. So, I change it but with the needed language that still preserves the legal intentions and the deal closes with no one the wiser. Keep copies of both my original and the changed description with correspondence indicating the change per so and so title company or whatever. It's actually kind of amazing how often descriptions are accepted by the attorneys without them asking for different language. Most contracts their rule is never accept without demanding changes, and go back and forth with counter demands at least a couple cycles. Everyone has to justify their fee somehow, and sometimes the changed language does benefit the client.
I understand and agree with your unwillingness to reduce the perfectly sufficient description to bearings and distances without calling for the actual intended controlling elements of the boundary, but I agree with Kent and Duane that you were in the best position to provide them with what they thought they needed while still preserving the controlling and riparian nature of the creek boundary (although the description was perfectly insurable as it was prior to adding dimensions).
All to often, an ignorant title officer or lender who thinks they understand land descriptions because they can cogo a figure from described dimensions will insist on a new description for the purpose of adding or updating dimensions to reflect those shown on the most recent survey. If the surveyor doesn't take control of this, the know-it-all with the title company or the lender will decide he knows better than the surveyor and just write the description on their own, scewing it up by losing the intent in the process.
:good:
I agree with everyone in my own wishy-washy way, especially since I'm not sure everyone agrees.
I think eapls said some of my sentiments best. It is bothersome when some GIS guy, or government official or lawyer decides they know more than you do about this topic, and doesn't try to discuss it first.
If the description is definitely going to get rewritten to include metes and bounds, it is best that you do it if you want it done right and you don't want to lose the integrity of the controlling calls. There should be no reason that they shouldn't able to get the existing acreage at the time of your survey from your survey plat itself, and not have to degrade or attempt to devalue the original deed's intent. Having the interim description or survey plat showing those particular bearings and distances is good evidence of where the property was and is especially important if a sudden change in the course of the stream is done.
Anyway, a few thoughts on the subject.
Just curious, does Oklahoma allow or require plats to be recorded? If so, I wonder how the title company would react if something like "and more particularly described in a plat by paden cash dated April 1, 2000, and recorded as map number 1234 in the Oz County land records" were added to the description, and the description were otherwise left alone. I also wonder if there would be special wording on the plat to indicate it was the creek, and not the lines describing the creek on a particular day, that was the boundary.
Nice sharp and clean looking survey plat. Wondering how many people have copied that North arrow for their collection.
North Arrow
I cabbaged that North Arrow off of an old (10 yrs. or so) MicroStation file that I got from a utility company transmission route some time back.
It had been hatched with what looked like "ANSI31", but exploded. I've doctored it up and made it into a cell (a block) and blew away all those hatch lines and filled it with solid.
Although not one of favs, I use it on a lot of exhibits because it is so "vanilla".
While I agree with your sentiments about the "legal" being sufficient as it stands I can think of one possibility for the calls being necessary. Several years ago (30+) we prepared a boundary survey of a parcel with a stream as one line of the boundary. A few years later the adjoiner piped and filled the stream to make his property more useable. Georgia is not a required recording state so the plat was not filed for record. Without the calls being on the "legal" a following surveyor would find it difficult, if not impossible, to locate the stream at its location before the piping and filling.
Andy
> While I agree with your sentiments about the "legal" being sufficient as it stands I can think of one possibility for the calls being necessary. Several years ago (30+) we prepared a boundary survey of a parcel with a stream as one line of the boundary. A few years later the adjoiner piped and filled the stream to make his property more useable. Georgia is not a required recording state so the plat was not filed for record. Without the calls being on the "legal" a following surveyor would find it difficult, if not impossible, to locate the stream at its location before the piping and filling.
>
While I agree that more useful information in a well written description is far better than less, your argument makes a very good case in support of recording vs continuously changing (updating?) descriptions to report each subsequent measurement value.
64 vs 10000 words
Why do we need a description put on a deed?
Who really cares what that description says?
Think about those two questions for about thirty minutes. Think about the knowledge level of the vast majority of people who actually need to know what the description is telling them. How many have any comprehension of terms like, "as determined on May 6, 2013 at 8:36 P.M. Central Daylight Time utilizing a Fostoria 936B scanner/lazer/compunctuator as standardized on May 1, 2013 at 9:13 A.M. Central Daylight Time against the official standard reticulator housed in the Official State of Nebraska Standards Headquarters; said determination conforming to ASTM Standard 88796Z as promulgated on December 19, 1997; and thence further calibrating said scanner/lazer/compunctuator to local anomalies unique to the subject region per Guide Manual 91234, dated March 7, 2004, and published by the Nebraska Society of Geomaticians. The result being that the basis of bearings for this description was determined to be North 02 Degrees 03 Minutes 01 Seconds East along the line connecting Point A, being the southwest corner of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 17, Township 6 North, Range 27 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, and Point B, being the .....................Said tract or parcel to henceforth be described as: Beginning at Star Coordinate 8886688668866.12345, 131343535649.84548, said coordinate conforming to the historically referenced location of intersection of the north line of the southeast quarter of said section as previously determined by Gerald Muggenthrower, Nebraska Licensed Surveyor #1432 as documented in....................................and the northweesterly right-of-way line of Highway 118 as described in Document XXX, Page YYY as recorded in the Office of the...................................; said north line of the................having an azimuth of................per the basis of bearings stated above; thence.............................................
64 vs 10000 words
Meanwhile, all credibility goes out the window once they do a Google search for "northweesterly".
Death of the Perfect Boundary>Description
I've always felt that the most perfect description is the one that reads "as shown on Survey Plan XXXXX recorded at Plan Book xxx Page xx"
Death of the Perfect Boundary>Description
Agreed. As long as the plat gets recorded. I've ran into so many around here that say that but the plat is nowhere to be found.
That's impressive that another surveyor would so casually throw out my intent. Obviously when I said "I wouldn't put any calls in for the creek" that would mean no bearing and distances calls, especially since directly afterward I mentioned a +/- call to the center line of the river, so it would be called out.
> That's impressive that another surveyor would so casually throw out my intent. Obviously when I said "I wouldn't put any calls in for the creek" that would mean no bearing and distances calls, especially since directly afterward I mentioned a +/- call to the center line of the river, so it would be called out.
Ah, so you would give calls for the creek. Excellent idea. :>
