Easement shown on plat but not described

If the pipe is NOT in, and there is no written dedication of the easement then I would say no, however the fact that it is shown on the sketch would tend to show intent of dedicating the easement.

Andy

I would check back deeds to the property and look for a previous grant for the utility service "as the pipe is laid".

First is it a recorded plat?

Second if it is, is there a acceptance statement that the governing body would sign?

Most likely these are the first two question you already asked yourself, but never hurts to check.

I agree with the possibility of intent, but without a signature (is there one?) the question would be "who's intent?"

Don

If its a deed it transfers ownership, and no easement exists. Is it really a "deed"?

OK, clarification. I have an instrument for an easement. In my original post, replace the word deed with the word instrument.

It is not a subdivision plat, it is an easement instrument with field notes and a plat [of survey] attached. In Texas, Field Notes = Legal Description/Metes & Bounds/Property Description. In Texas, Plat = a drawing of the survey.

These instruments were filed within the last 12 months.

No. That's my answer and I'm stickin' with it.

No description equals nothing.

I would label it on my drawing as "Possible Easement" and clearly state where I got info from. Report the facts, avoid liability and let the lawyers earn there money.

If I'm reading your situation correctly, I would show the valve easement by its recorded information and so state the information. I would show the pipeline area delineation from the sketch with clarifying notation of what it is and where it came from and that no formal dedication data was provided.

It would not be a very hard stretch to conclude that the site needed an access easement and the intent was to provide one. Was it left out intentionally or by over-site. All happened in the last year, maybe instead of making an assumption one way or the other your efforts would be better spent on looking people up involved with the actions of the previous year. It might be they are relying on an attorney who relied on a legal secretary to get it all on paper and with the rush the writings for the pipe itself got lost in the shuffle. Regardless a landlocked tract means problems for someone, do some talking and give everyone involve the opportunity to correct the problem among themselves, then you can do your thing.
jud

>These instruments were filed within the last 12 months.

Call the author of the documents and find out what the story is.

How is potentially slandering someone's title (possible easement) avoiding liability?

Paul and Jud have the best answer: call the persons responsible for this and get it cleared up one way or the other. If they were supposed to dedicate the pipeline easement then let them fix the problem.

"Apparent" is a much better word than "possible".

Source: Walt Robillard

Hold the phone cowboy. Is the pipeline a "flowline" and this is a gate valve or "sales point"? If so, there is no pipeline easement, regardless of whether or not it's labeled. It's a flowline in it's unit whereby the initial lease and pooling agreement cover it.

No, it's the pipeline to the outside world. They are normally covered by an easement. It looks like the valve site and pipeline were relocated at some point in the past, but the proper revised r.o.w. agreement was not properly executed. The true circumstances on the ground are somewhat more complicated than I alluded to, but the gist of the question holds.

> OK, clarification. I have an instrument for an easement.
What does the operative language of the "instrument" say? If it mentions both the valve site and the pipe line easements, then the intent is expressed and there would be an easement. The question that remains is: "Can a surveyor locate it on the ground?" If so, the "description" (whether by written words or by plat) would be sufficient.

If the operative language of the instrument only conveys the valve site and no utility line easement, then the question arises: "What good is the valve site, if you can't get there with a pipe line?" The grant of the valve site easement implies the grant of the pipe line and access to make the site operable. The fact that the line easement is shown on the survey, is an expressed representation of how they were to get there.

A document must be interpreted to make sense out of the information given. One cannot simply ignore evidence because of some technicality or expectation of how one thinks they should have presented it. The sketch is just as much part of the instrument as the written words (10,000 of them).

I'd expect there is a separate document for the pipeline...? Keep looking until you're satisfied it's not sitting in someone's file cabinet. An executed document, even if unrecorded, is just as valid (with a few state exceptions).

JBS

General rule; if it's mentioned in the writing then it's part of the writing. In your clarification, it's not clear, but I think that general rule would extend to your situation. It sounds like the plat was either filed directly with the instrument or referenced in some way by the field notes or instrument, otherwise how did you find it filed? Even if the plat is not referenced in the field notes or instrument, but is filed and readily accessible, I think the general rule would be extended to it (they must be tied to together somehow as you say they were both filed during the same time frame). When evidence of intent of the parties is easily found in the record and memorialized by writing (map, report, whatever) then it should control over anything the parties say, with the unlikely exception that the original parties are still the contolling ones and agree the record does not reflect the intent.

The easement in question exists, no need to look further.

The dedicatory language of the written deed only talks about the valve site.

It is an as-built of the property and the pad. Just trying to show what exists. A note will be included that the pipeline easement is missing. At this time my job is just to show the facts, not fix them.

Easement shown on plat but not described - Andy

I once had a similar situation. I was working for an attorney, the client, and I was to stake out a zone line.

I had the description and also a map exhibit as an attachment. The description conflicted with the exhibit, so I called my client.

He told me, that in such a situation where two parts of a filed document conflict, then the map will always hold over the written description.

FWIW