So, I've spent a couple of days or so preparing an exhibit showing Tracts One through Eight and all the SAVE AND EXCEPT tracts that collectively described the land subject to a certain instrument executed back in the 1990s in connection with a real estate development.
The magic happened when, after spending pages describing three of the tracts by metes and bounds as part of the land subject to the instrument, the description continued for pages and pages more of SAVE AND EXCEPT tracts that included, yes, the identical metes and bounds descriptions of three of the tracts given in the first part of the property description.
The net result was "the subject of this instrument includes, among others, that certain 53.7802 acre tract of land more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows .... SAVE AND EXCEPT a certain 53.7802 acre tract of land more particularly described as follows [by metes and bounds identical to those previously recited]". That was novel.
Novel is not the word that I think would have been my first choice to have muttered...
I suppose that reflects the history of acquisitions and sales of pieces.
Bill93, post: 386148, member: 87 wrote: I suppose that reflects the history of acquisitions and sales of pieces.
Yes, that is almost certainly the case. It's evidence of very sloppy work, though, that whoever assembled those pages and pages of descriptions in the property schedule didn't simply omit the tracts that had been previously conveyed instead of taking the "King's X" approach.
That's great.
Best one I recall of my own was years ago where an 80 had been split into three odd tracts, then eventually all came back together. The description being used was for all three tracts. The trouble was the guy had told me had just bought the whole eighty but it had been split up earlier so there was more than one description. Sure thing. Find his deed recorded that said "This tract.......that tract........and". We begin the field work and discover half of the house that came with the 80 wasn't on what his deed said. That's when the "and" at the bottom of the page began to make sense. Eventually he came up with a new deed with all three tracts listed.
Two months ago we did another job for this same client.
About the same time we did a survey for another fellow several miles away. When done I asked for his mailing address. Turns out he lives in the house we cut off those many years ago once the owner actually owned all of it.
I'm thinking that there is room for a property description along the lines of :
"All of that certain body of land known as North America as shown upon the maps on file in the offices of the National Geographic Society and lying North of the center of the Rio Grande River, South of the 32nd Parallel of Latitude , East of the Meridian of Longitude passing through the Southeast corner of Building Block 5 East of Main Street in the Town of Bastrop, formerly known as Mina, and West of the West bank of the Pecos River,
SAVE AND EXCEPT those certain tracts of land known and recognized as the following counties in the State of Texas:
and also SAVE AND EXCEPT
that certain portion of the tract of land known as Travis County, Texas lying outside the Corporate Limits of the City of West Lake Hills, Texas as they existed on August 10, 2016,
[...]"
and basically whittling the scope of the description down little by little until pages later all that is left is a certain residential lot.
Years ago I surveyed and appeared as an expert witness in a condemnation case. The property was three parcels that had been combined into one. The descriptions were bad, to say the least. By using the ALL the available data (mostly past deeds and adjoiners) I was able to come up with a decent survey that fit well with occupation. When I was cross examined by the owner (representing himself) all he would ask about was an interior line that he didn't like. I tried my best to explain to him that no matter where I moved the interior line the exterior lines that defined the entire condemned property would remain the same. I don't think he ever got the concept.
Andy
Have any of ya'll ran into a deal where the landowner had a 100 acre tract, and sold off bits and pieces, writing his own descriptions, and eyeballing his acreages? Selling 10 acres to Joe Smith, 12 acres to Jim Brown, etc. But they just stepped off the areas, put fences in, and called it good. Fast forward to present day, the man died, and his family wanted to split up what was left of the 100 acres. Turns out, there was still land not under fence to new owners, but by descriptions, he had conveyed 104 acres.
Monte, post: 386186, member: 11913 wrote: Have any of ya'll ran into a deal where the landowner had a 100 acre tract, and sold off bits and pieces, writing his own descriptions, and eyeballing his acreages?
Whenever I find an old metes and bounds description written in yards, it usually turns out that the best explanation is that Mr. Landowner paced it off and took the bearings by some wildly inferior method. Yards = Something's Wildly Screwed Up On This One. The landowner descriptions are pretty much always that way.
53.7802Ac., now that's funny
MightyMoe, post: 386230, member: 700 wrote: 53.7802Ac., now that's funny
Yes, they're nearly all written to the nearest 0.0001 acre, which is pretty funny, particularly considering that the corner monuments are described as 1" rebars and the location is practically in Oklahoma. I have to think that engineers were involved in that one.