Perhaps I should alter my avatar to that of a 101 year-old, incredibly rich, Jewish man from ultra-urban America who is still renowned for his wit and quick thinking.
Holy Cow, post: 352430, member: 50 wrote: It appears that some kept posting without ever carefully reading the key message:
I can shed some light on these questions as I am the friend John mentioned.
An attorney asked me to survey the north line of his clients property. The south line of the adjoining deed reads the same. The question arose from the fact that the deeds reference the center of a 60' wide roadway, which is actually a 20' wide gravel driveway serving houses on both parcels. The deeds read "...to a point in the center of a 60 foot roadway; thence along said centerline (bearing and dist) to a point; thence (bearing and dist) to a point; thence (bearing and dist) to a point;...to the point of beginning." The reference to the centerline was only in that first course, and there was never a call that read leaving said centerline. The line closely follows the road, better in some areas than others, of course. Large trees and a bridge at one end indicate the road has not moved much, if at all, over time.
The problem came up because both deeds reference an easement 30' wide on the adjoining parcel, creating the 60' wide roadway. As others have mentioned, a road rarely follows the center of a right-of-way. But in this case, the center of the easement, may or may not be controlled by the center of the road. Hence the question.
For what it's worth, the attorney thinks the road only defines the first call, not the rest.
.
.
.
.
.
The future wanderings of the road bed have absolutely nothing to do with the common property line. Run the wording of the description in reverse to more clearly understand why this is the case. Numerous courses are followed before encountering the one ( and only) course that is said to be along a road center line. Hence, the mention of the road was added by the scrivener to provide some reference to the fact that road easements were intended to be tied to the courses that were intended to document the existence of a road, not to serve as notice that wherever the driveway ever happens to be in perpetuity is where the property boundary is located.
If this is the case then it seems pretty straight forward to me. I see no problem esp if the gravel roadway falls within the 60' easement. Just follow the description. It will also lead to a lot less confusion down the road
dnelson80, post: 351925, member: 9396 wrote: I can shed some light on these questions as I am the friend John mentioned.
An attorney asked me to survey the north line of his clients property. The south line of the adjoining deed reads the same. The question arose from the fact that the deeds reference the center of a 60' wide roadway, which is actually a 20' wide gravel driveway serving houses on both parcels. The deeds read "...to a point in the center of a 60 foot roadway; thence along said centerline (bearing and dist) to a point; thence (bearing and dist) to a point; thence (bearing and dist) to a point;...to the point of beginning." The reference to the centerline was only in that first course, and there was never a call that read leaving said centerline. The line closely follows the road, better in some areas than others, of course. Large trees and a bridge at one end indicate the road has not moved much, if at all, over time.
The problem came up because both deeds reference an easement 30' wide on the adjoining parcel, creating the 60' wide roadway. As others have mentioned, a road rarely follows the center of a right-of-way. But in this case, the center of the easement, may or may not be controlled by the center of the road. Hence the question.
For what it's worth, the attorney thinks the road only defines the first call, not the rest.
I agree. Reads like an intentional departure from the roadway, or maybe the roadway didn't exist any further at the time.
Dave Karoly, post: 351928, member: 94 wrote: The best solution is to set monuments with the agreement of both owners and have them execute a boundary line agreement to nail down the boundary better.
I like what Dave is saying. As surveyors we are very often dealing with ambiguities in legal descriptions and coming up with our best professional opinion. As can be seen, there are posts that come up with exact opposite solutions, and even with gathering parol evidence, and other facts, two different surveyors may or may not come up with the same extrensic facts or evidence.
Setting monuments (hopefully @ the bearing-and-distance calls), as long as the road is within the easement, and getting a "BLA" between the owners with a description that actually calls to the monuments is the best way to perpetuate the boundary. Or whatever they want to agree to, you can monument it and make it clearer for future surveyors and to minimize the possibility for future disputes and problems.
That would be working in the confines of acting in the best interest of all parties and aiding in keeping harmony between the owners. (peace and love, man)
Holy Cow, post: 352463, member: 50 wrote: Perhaps I should alter my avatar to that of a 101 year-old, incredibly rich, Jewish man from ultra-urban America who is still renowned for his wit and quick thinking.
Yeah, that's one idea, but then again, the cow's pretty good......
