Description vs Technical Standards

That is interesting. I have never had to deal with that. It seems that referencing to a senior line would be "good form", but not calling to every adjoiner if they are not senior.

Could you "reference" to the adjoiners without making it a senior-type call? I don't know what exactly....but something like "said west line adjoins but is not subject to (or "not junior to") [so and so's property]

edit: maybe you could talk to your state society about changing that state requirement. Or get their opinion on the intent. I tend to agree that it is bad practice to make that adjoiner call.

never heard that argument before.

most of the attorneys i work for are clueless to the minimum tech standards and only want to see what they are used to seeing, be it right or wrong.

i would stand my ground on that on. and good on you for writing that PIA version of legal description.

Stacy,

In Florida the Minimum Technical Standards are just that, minimum but HAVE to be followed, if not you are subjecting yourself to Board discipline. Additional specifications, such as ALTA do not supersede our MTS and are considered additional specifications. It's the same in GA.

I’m glad you were paid. Tell the “attorney” to go piss up a rope! 😉

Have a great weekend!

That sounds pretty harsh telling the attorney to go piss up a rope. it sounds like the attorney is aware of possible problems and is looking out for his/her client's best interest. This sounds like a standard that should be revisited by Georgia to me. In the mean time, I agree that you have to meet state standards.

The call for an abutter is important. It prevents creation of gaps or overlaps, and a call for an abutter makes that abutter's line as important as a natural monument.

It appears that you have handled this correctly in a professional manner.

Adam,

I meant that as a figure of speech.

Have a great weekend! 🙂

"due to the fact that Georgia law provides that when a reference is included within the body of the legal description, if a dispute ever arose with regard to the legal description, the line referenced (i.e. the line of the named party) would control"

I take that to mean "to a pipe found at the termination of the second course of Deed Book 123, Page 456, thence; along the second course reversed of John Smith's land as described in Deed Book 123, Page 456 to a pipe found, termination of first course..." which I would only insert in a description when I intended it to control. i.e. I may want to agree with John Smith's 1234.56' line rather than my PQ's 74.8 perches. My survey must then yield to the second course wherever it may be found to be. It should be clear that the called line and the adjoiner's line are one in the same.

A reference to along Tax Lot 3, land of John Smith is a secondary reference and is no more controlling than reference to my PQ's Tax Lot number, it is secondary information and yields to more accurate information.

Somehow the the ALTA reviewers do not understand that the survey is an opinion. If they want facts those are found in a court of law and come at a significantly higher fee.

BTW, did the title company provide all the adjoiner deeds or are they ignorant of what their job and a surveyor's job is?

Paul in PA

FL/GA
I understand. I only meant that, in my opinion, something is wrong with the law and that the lawyer had a good point. I kind of understood your comment was figurative.

I hope you have a good day as well.

When I call for whose boundary the monument is falling in, I mention my parent tract or the original boundary of my client plus the adjoining owner in the same paragraph.

The bounds call is the other half of metes and bounds description that is not limited to a mathematical location alone.It places that monument at a certain place even when any deviation of distance or bearing places it 10ft or 0.04ft out of location.

In Texas it is expected for property descriptions to include that information.

It really depends on they way you call the line out.

Per Wattles:

"If the call to adjoiners is merely incidental and the context does not make the tie positive, the call must be considered as only locative" As evidence of this, he points us to Waters v. Dennis Simmons Lumber Co., 154 N.C. 232, 70 SE 284.

Wattles goes on to state:

"Normally a tie, or a call, given in a description to an adjoiner deed, a physical monument, a railroad right-of-way, etc., etc. means that whatever distance and/or bearing (depending on the wording given for the tie) is measured on the ground to that tie will hold."[/color}

Georgia Surveyor,
That is what I was thinking. I was trying to suggest language above that would be "incidental" as Wattles puts it.

Seems to me.... the desription exists already?

Are you doing an ALTA 0F AN EXISTING PARCEL? A PARCEL THAT ALREADY HAS A DESCRIPTION? THE OWNER OUGHT TO HAVE SUPPLIED YOU WITH A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY TO BE SURVEYED AND THAT DESCRIPTION ALSO OUGHT TO APPEAR IN THE TITLE REPORT. THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION OUGHT NOT BE CHANGED BY YOU OR THE ATTORNEYS. I DO NOT FIX DESCRIPTIONS, THIS IS NOT MY JOB. I WRITE NEW ONE WHEN NEWS ARE CALLED FOR AND I MAY SUGGEST TO THE TITLE COMPANY THAT THEY CORRECT ERRORS IN THE DESCRIPTION THEY PROVIDE, BUT OTHERWISE THE DECRIPTION GIVEN TO ME IS WHAT I SURVEY AND WHAT I SHOW ON THE LAND TITLE SURVEY.
I MADE THESE STATEMNETS IN A VOID OF KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR STATE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARD OF CARE WHERE YOU PRACTICE....

Dane, that may work in CA

But in Georgia you have to write a new one if it does not agree with what you find in the ground. So basically you have to write a new one every time you survey.

Stacy,

Would it meet the rules, do you think, if you did your standard m&b description and then at the end you put "containing xxx.xx acres and being bounded on the north by, on the east by, on the south by and on the west by. I know it is very vague, but I think that would satisfy the board rules and wattles.

Georgia

That is a foreign concept to us Californicators. If the description is sufficient to be placed on the ground, it doesn't matter that some of the dimensions don't match our measurements. If it says 100.00' to the lands of Jones, and we measure 101.00', no big deal. It goes to the lands of Jones. I have had out-of-state attorneys and title people demand metes and bounds descriptions on ALTA's that differ from the record descriptions a couple of times and I've reluctantly done them but I also repeat the record description from the document that created the parcel.

Well, I'd think that even in Georgia you have to distinguish between junior and senior titles abutting the parcel you're surveying. If junior, the call is "Thence along the line of [subject parcel], same being the true line of that certain tract of land conveyed to [junior]."

If senior the call is "Thence along along the line of [senior parcel, referencing original severing conveyance], same being the true line of [subject parcel]".

If stating that you've actually found the true boundary of anything bothers you, then leave the "true" out.

as opposed to what?

the false boundary?

as opposed to what?

> the false boundary?

No, as opposed to the line of such-and-such a junior tract as described in [instrument of writing] that may be in conflict with that of the senior title as described in [reference original severing conveyance].

Not bad form and the attorney is confused.

You are not calling the adjoiner as a senior line. The only lines that do not call out an adjoiner ARE THE SENIOR LINES. Since there is no adjoiner at the time.

The chain of title is followed to determine junior/senior.

What the attorney is stating is rely on bearing and distance OVER ALL ELSE. Thats the wrong answer. gaps and overlaps. I've seen it. If the description does not call for an adjoiner and does not reach the adjoiners line then there is a gap or overlap and it sucks to do. This can happen when something is supposed to have been surveyed to an outside line but the survey didn't quite reach it and didn't call for the adjoiner which would have cleared things up.

by calling out the adjoiner you are saying no matter if my distance or bearing is off by 1 foot or degree or a 1,000 feet or 90 degrees, this property perfectly lines with the neighbor. This prevent overlaps and gaps. Beyond this the only way to find an overlap and gap with the call to an adjoiner in place is to find two set of monuments, and that there overlap or gap is the surveyors fault but does not mess up title since the surveyor that has a monument set into another property ALSO stated what he surveyed joined perfectly without overlap or gap with the adjoiner BECAUSE HE CALLED OUT THE ADJOINER IN THE DESCRIPTION.

Calling out the adjoiner is best practise.

I once found about 7 Acres due to this. All the land grants were made within a few years of each other but none of them called for their neighbor. Since in the one corner the bearings and distances didn't match and there was no call to an adjoiner, there left a 7 Acre gap that had never been granted to anybody. It was resolved by those that owned around it each getting a portion of the land.

I just did a survey not to long ago where and entire call was left out of the subject description. I traced it back to the mid 1800's. It just got missed by somebody long ago. BUT the deed called for the adjoiner, which is where I found the call and used it. Guess what, once I found that call and used it, the very old fence fit pretty dang good. My first calcs, which I almost used, would have been way out of the fence and completely wrong. Call for adjoiners.