I had a colleague ask me why we need to create lengthy “written” descriptions instead of just recording a map and creating a description that says “Parcel X as shown on the map recorded in …”. If the map contains all the adjoining parcel recording data, he thinks that would adequately address the bounds issues.
Any comments?
Well, like they say a picture is worth a thousand words.
The map is more than adequate. In fact it has been my experience that the attorney my transcribe the description incorrectly, so you wind up having to refer to the map anyway.
We do this whenever possible.
Why not all the time?
Cost of creating an ROS map + High and rising costs of recording + slightly longer = not the typical choice
This was the approach recommended in my Legal Aspects class at college. For mysterious reasons attorneys often ask for the long-form description even when they have a plan to refer to. That just means a bigger invoice from my end. 🤑
I prefer a reference to the recorded plat because I can't control the actions of my client's attorney's secretary.
It depends on the instrument.
If it's a formally recognized recorded Subdivision or Certificate of Survey, then the Lot#, Tract # is the way to go.
If it's only an Exhibit to a recording such as Exhibit "A" (description) referencing Exhibit "B" (drawing) it can cause issues. There seem to be title people who don't like to or won't file the Exhibit "B" either when it's first created or when it's sold the next time. So, we do both for those types of parcel surveys.
Title people can't extinguish the Subdivision, COS, or ROS plats but if you say tract 1 as shown on Exhibit "B" and it's not filed then it's a problem. If it has the narrative, then at least that is retraceable.
You guys have it all wrong. We write the wordy descriptions for a filed map lot because the map does not say: "point" at each corner, while the written description will include the irrefutable monument: "to a point."
Wattles fans know where I am coming from ...
Ken
Because of the statute of frauds.
CAD, GIS, and GNSS were a few years out in the 1700's, so the few that could read/write had to memorialize the transer of interest(s) in land.
The private ownership of real property was a relatively new concept adopted by The New World.
@mulambda382 There's no reason the legalese couldn't be right on the survey.
That wasn't the original question.
Deeds convey interests in land, not surveys.
And yes, the description could be on the face of the survey; I did not claim otherwise.
But if the deed says one thing, and the survey says something different, now what? (We never see that, right?)
If the intent of the parties is clear and contained within the 4 corners of the deed, then that is the interest conveyed.
Which is why introducing a 3rd party "interpretation" (surveyor/attorney/etc.), which could be wrong for a myriad of reasons, is discouraged, and a lesser quality of evidence.
And if there is only reference to the plat, there can be no conflict between the two.
Might be a regional thing. We call a plat what many call a ROS in other regions. It's not known as a subdivision. In our region the county assigns a parcel name before the survey is accepted. The meets and bounds description for the parcel are on the plat. Often subsequent deeds simply refer to Parcel B of the.... as recorded in Plat Book 999, page9999...
That an awful lot of assuming about the integrity/quality of the plat.
What if the plat is deficient, vague, or subpar?
You may have avoided conflict, but may still obfuscate the intent.
Description by map only is very common here. Actually very predominate. Most people who own property have a deed saying they bought Lot 12 Block 3 of the RPLS subdivision recorded at receptions number 343453456. Any further legal description written later with metes and bounds is only a degradation of the description of the parcel being sold.
