Does This Description make sense to you?

It's Plottable unless I am missing something. Its a 4.76 foot wide strip (N-S) by 110 foot wide strip (E-W).

523.6 SqFt

The SE corner of said strip being 330 ft west and 1010 ft south of the East 1/4 corner in a perfect Section Breakdown.

?ÿ

Aren't there a couple of missing words?

Sounds like they probably knew where the boundaries were until somebody did a brand new section breakdown, and now are trying to clean up the mess.

Posted by: @jered-mcgrath-pls

It's Plottable unless I am missing something. Its a 4.76 foot wide strip (N-S) by 110 foot wide strip (E-W).

523.6 SqFt

The SE corner of said strip being 330 ft west and 1010 ft south of the East 1/4 corner in a perfect Section Breakdown.

That's what I come up with as well. It is plottable, just convoluted.

Since I was already rough calculating properties in Google Earth a couple counties to the north, this is where I place it...

?ÿ

?ÿ

I'm betting it is neither precisely 4.76 feet on both ends nor an even 110.00 feet the other way.?ÿ But, miracles have been known to happen.

There are entire Unrecorded Subdivisions described by partition. Fun.?ÿ

Hopefully it was not written by a Land Surveyor and a proper boundary survey would probably reveal some issues.

I am curious about the phrase ƒ??together with all after acquired title of the grantor(s)ƒ?. Really? Is this a common phrase in your neck of the woods?

My best effort. Somebody measured something then another somebody 'fixed' it. Steve

No issue to generate the described tract however, better verbiage should have been utilized. Reminds me of a couple attorneys that I know involved in a vein attempt to describe property.?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ OOPS, Sorry,, said that out loud...

Close but no cigar.?ÿ It says it is in the N2/S2/SE4/NE4/SE4

Posted by: @dpuffett

I am curious about the phrase ƒ??together with all after acquired title of the grantor(s)ƒ?. Really? Is this a common phrase in your neck of the woods?

If that situation arises, isn't it covered as a legal principle even without the statement?

We can ?ÿall assume it's 4.76 feet by 110 feet; my concern is with the missing words; and shouldn't it start with the South 4.76 feet? I mean, that's the amount of property your giving up.

could these minor issues come back and bite someone?

There is a long convoluted behind this; starting about 5 years ago. Maybe I'll get into that a little later...

Also; another question:

If you hire a surveyor; and he finds that the neighbors fence is on your property by 4.76 feet; and your neighbor files an adverse possession claim. Is it common for you to pay that neighbor $10,000?

Just asking for a friend...

@bill93 I would think so. It’s just kind of the vague statement which could be misinterpreted. 

It would be interesting to see the adjoining deed descriptions and some chain of title on this. Must be some interesting history.