Two adjoining aliquot part 40 acre parcels. Landowners want to swap a couple of 1-1/2 acre parcels. Each of the small trade parcels are 80 and 50 foot strips along the aliquot boundaries (not full length). I'm considering only modifying the aliquot descriptions by excepting out what is traded out and adding by ALSO what is traded in. The trade out from the one parcel is the add in to the other and the other way around. Title could be exchanged by only marking the inside corners of the excepted parcels and calling a bearing from there to the aliquot lines. The parties are not interested in locating the aliquot boundaries precisely as most original section corners are are MIA (lots more work later to clean this up). I do have one solid quarter section corner to go to for the POB's. Trade acreage doesn't need to be exactly equal. The final parcels will still be one contiguous parcel.
So the adjusted parcel descriptions would be like:
NW1/4 of the NW1/4 Bla bla bla
Except Bla Bla Bla (trade away)
Also Bla Bla Bla (trade in)
Should transfer clear title just as good as the aliquot part from the GLO, right? No need to survey the aliquot parts in total and deal with all the MIA section corners (know about where they belong). No disturbance of the original aliquot description or boundaries.
So what's the problems if any?
I don’t see a problem except that for present conveyances by Grant Deed, the descriptions should probably just be for the new little pieces, however you want to describe them, with verbiage specifying that the purpose is for a boundary line adjustment. If you’re going to go with quitclaims, then you could use your new total parcel descriptions with the “excepting therefrom” and the “together with”, which are good and marketable descriptions for future transfers.
IMHO
Don
I'd put the ALSO before the EXCEPT. I came across long deed once, made up of several parcels, that had an EXCEPT nested in an EXCEPT, which would have the effect of putting it back in, when it was clear that the intention was otherwise. Probably a deed compiled by a lawyer from various sources.
Pseudo is correct. The augmenting clause (together with) should precede the qualifying clause (and excepting therefrom).
I'd also suggest that you place a "more or less" distance and acreage along with the bearing, just so the assessor can get close when they draw the line on their tax map.
JBS
Say what you like about metes and bounds .....
but a metes and bounds survey would provide a good description of the property, corners would actually be set, and all parties would know legally & physically what they are getting.
I know that for PLSS purposes what you are proposing is legally sufficient and technically correct, but why are you allowing your client to dictate that you are doing a half arse job? A PROFESSIONAL surveyor would do a professional job. Not something that someone else is going to have to interpret and clean up down the road after new fences have been built and then you have the argument about deed lines versus fence lines.
Do the job and do it right. What you are proposing could be written by a lawyer or realter after the client goes out and paces off a few distances without knowing what his pace is - never mind that the corners aren't there before or after.
Say what you like about metes and bounds .....
If your client won't pay you for the extra work you have alluded to, should you do it for free?
I'm doing more then the GLO did when they sold all the aliquot parts without surveying most the corners.
My excepted and together with parcels will have the inside corners moumented and a survey filed to locate them.
Your call that I'm not a professional is your problem, not mine. I can't fix these landowners boundary problems, the landowners will need to do that. If they will pay, I'll help them out.
All the problems that you say will be created are already firmly in place, not my fault. Peaceful area, nobody really cares (enough to pay). Been that way for 150 years now.
Even with a precise survey of the 40 acre boundaries I don't think the description for title purposes should be changed to a metes and bounds. The original description should be carried forward. Sure a survey could be done that shows on the survey the precise bearings and distances but the record should be supplemented by the measured per the survey. A clean transfer of title is brought forward by sticking with the original description. A survey would just show more precisely where the boundaries mathematical position is on the ground.
I prefer the terms "Less and Except" and "Together With".
I agree with Mr. Ingram. Keeping aliquot part descriptions after the controlling section corner monuments are 'questionable', if not gone, is just asking for future trouble.
The BLM went to M&B with tract # designators when existing physical boundaries defined bona fide rights, (and the tract #'s replaced the aliquot part descriptors in the record), in compliance with 43 USC 772; and we private surveyors are required to obey state laws that recognize unchallenged occupation and control that legalizes the established property boundaries.
Remember, Skelton said that the "..office of the description is not to identify but to furnish a means of identification,..."; (Chap 1, art. 3).
An accurate, retraceable description is the surveyors responsibility.
Richard Schaut
Mr. Day,
It appears that some are trying hard not to understand what your purpose is.
Your clients are going to own "the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 together with...and excepting therefrom..." What the heck is the problem? It is not required to survey the entirety of both tracts for no compensation to facilitate a boundary line adjustment.
You're doing good in my opinion.
Don
I gotta disagree with JB and Richard. The exception out of the 40 should be immediatly after its description, in order to be clear where the exception is held out from. Then there should be another description (not augmenting clause) indicating the other 40 and the portion thereof.
No need to survey the whole of it, but the portions traded need to be described and marked sufficiently to identify and retrace in their own right. This assumes the parties know where they want the lines on the ground and are not concerned over where the aliquot division actually turns out to be. You simply explain that the lines as marked will be the boundaries except they might be altered a bit at that division line in a future full survey.
As far as professionalism goes, the only question is to ascertain the parties intentions and carry them out. If you can do that for a fee they're willing to pay, then no problem. But sometimes the client must bargain away some of what they desire in order to be able to afford it. Make sure you get your recomendations along with final disposition of services in writing. Otherwise they will likely claim they wanted the line perfect and expected you to survey the whole of each aliquot if it was necessary.
> I gotta disagree with JB and Richard. The exception out of the 40 should be immediately after its description, in order to be clear where the exception is held out from. Then there should be another description (not augmenting clause) indicating the other 40 and the portion thereof.
>
I would agree, Duane. The better way would be to describe "Parcel 1" as the "NW4NW4 ... Excepting therefrom ...". Then to describe "Parcel 2" as the adjusted exchange parcel. This approach would eliminate the double clause issue entirely.
The problem with that is, in this situation, rather than appearing as an adjustment of a single boundary between two aliquot parts, there is an appearance of creating and exchanging separate parcels of land. A boundary adjustment cannot create a new parcel. That requires a subdivision approval, process and plat. Our state law allows an adjustment under the following three requirements:
>(a) The purpose of the adjustment is to relocate the common property line;
>(b) No new parcel is created; and
>(c) There is no violation of an existing zoning ordinance or variance.
Describing the parcels as separate would violate requirement (b). There must, in this instance, be one parcel description going into the adjustment, and one parcel description coming out. Typically, that would be a new metes and bounds description. With the unknown aliquot attachment, that process is a bit more tricky.
Another way this could be handled would be to describe the new division boundary between the two parcels, then execute generic cross-quitclaim descriptions describing, "that portion of the [aliquot parts] adjoining north of the [new boundary]..." and "that portion of the [aliquot parts] adjoining south of the [new boundary]...". The two new descriptions could be separately quit-claimed, or could be included in a single document with the appropriate agreement and conveyance language and both party signatures.
JBS
JB,
Would Utah not allow descriptions of just the exchanged parcels as long as there was specific wording to the effect that it was for the purpose of a BLA? Just curious.
Don
> Would Utah not allow descriptions of just the exchanged parcels as long as there was specific wording to the effect that it was for the purpose of a BLA? Just curious.
>
When "parcels" (strips, triangles, etc) are specifically described and exchanged, the assessor's office draws them onto their map and assigns a tax ID number to the parcels. That creates two new parcels in violation of the subdivision regulations. The point of the boundary adjustment process is to start with two parcels (or more) and end up with new descriptions of the same number of parcels. Hence, "no new parcels are created." This process also eliminates the "need" for someone in the back-room of the assessor's office from having to write the description themselves. Those usually end in disaster.
JBS
Oh, yes. Assessors are an independent, if not particularly knowledgable lot. Around here they tend to arbitrarily split parcels between map pages that don't conveniently fit on a single one. It is difficult for the layman to understand that Assessor's parcels are not necessarily legal parcels. I don't know (haven't seen) what could happen if one of these Assessor created “parcels” goes to sale for a tax default.
Don
Sometimes the Assessor splits up a single legal unit just for tax purposes. It is common for easements to have their own APN because they are taxed differently than the rest of the property.
> Sometimes the Assessor splits up a single legal unit just for tax purposes. It is common for easements to have their own APN because they are taxed differently than the rest of the property.
That's right, Dave. Tax Rate Areas commonly split parcels in unincorporated areas; things like different fire districts, school districts, cemetery districts, etc.
Don
I encountered the multiple tax description problem about 5 years ago. I had done a boundary adjustment on a couple of 300 acre parcels. The township corner is in the middle of it all. Two parcels was adjusted into two new parcels. When it came out on the tax map one of the parcels had three tax numbers and tax descriptions. So it's one title parcel but has three tax descriptions. All is fine until someone deeds using the tax description (very common). Suppose then it will be an illegal subdivision.
We don't have that problem. The document is identified and in addition there is a form that must be filed with the document for tax mapping purposes identifying what is going on. Of course that extra form has caused problems in itself when not filled out correctly.
>I don't know (haven't seen) what could happen if one of these Assessor created “parcels” goes to sale for a tax default.
Interesting you should mention that, Don. I've been involved in two cases, so far, that were caused by non-existent parcels, created by the assessor. We we successful in proving that the parcels didn't exist. One of the parcels was picked up at a tax sale, they waited 4 years (after which they were able to receive title insurance), had a surveyor "stake it on the ground," then filed suit to quiet title against the neighbor who occupied it and had title to it. No problem when we proved the parcel didn't exist. I'm sure it didn't cost the landowner much more than $30k and 3 years of their life.
Tax deed, 4 years of tax payments, title insurance, and a survey. Still not enough?
JBS
