So you have a 40 year old description based on an engineer's plat of 125 acres with about 15 calls.
The first call places a 150' overlap of a section line. The subsequent call start to rhyme within reason but then there are another 2 later subsequent calls that do not and then subsequent calls fall back to rhyme and reason for the last 3 calls.
The first call has bee not used for occupation and/or possession and it has been acknowledged by the landowners that it was in error.
The latter false calls do not match the fences and adjoining record also on the ground.
No typos or graphical errors here, just wacky stuff.
So my ?,
Why even denote the repugnant calls on the plat or in the new title description. Isn't it better to place into the 'dust bin' of what shouldn't have been at this time?
Survey has been approved buy all parties involved.
There are other errors in the description also such as not making a title exception for 2 acres that were sold 65 years ago.
> Why even denote the repugnant calls on the plat or in the new title description. Isn't it better to place into the 'dust bin' of what shouldn't have been at this time?
Might want to file an affidavit with your survey plat to at least provide notice that the old description is now known as the new description and your reasons for changing the description. Just so future generations can understand what & why you did what you did.
Maybe just add the "bad" description to your plat and add a note explaining why it was abandoned.
I would not want all that T&A cluttering up the drawing, especially if most of it was wrong.
My $0.02
Have you looked at older descriptions. I often do not use the newest description to survey from when I find this sort of thing. The older deed descriptions usually clear any questions up. It is all noted in the narrative.
jud
'Survey has been approved buy all parties involved."
Including adjoiners, i assume?
If so, then quitclaims all around to the new survey and description and everyone is happy. No?
Yes.
I did the initial research and then had an abstract done.
These descriptions were part of a partition that was done 40 years ago.
I had surveyed the tracts North of this tract 5 years ago and knew there were problems. There were some BAs and I found a 35 year old survey along this line that disputed this overlap.
I had found the older survey in the courthouse that was not made an exception but I was fortunate that the abstractor had found another 30' strip that was sold without survey. This parcel was fenced and that 30' would have had me scratching my head for a while.
I have surveyed about 200 + acres in this area and find a consistent discrepancy because of slope chaining. It is all fairly uniform in difference except oddly enough in one course between 2 fat pine monuments of about 1250' where the difference is only 99.9%. The other lines seem to run at 99.5 or 99.6 %
But these 3 calls have no basis in reality.
I will do a report but will also make a note in the banner of the survey stating the false and inconsistent nature of the title instrument.
To all the adjoiners except one on a line not effected by the repugnant calls.
He has already stated to me that he has 'moved' a corner about 20' on a dispute that he was having with another adjoiner to his parcel in another section.
He is actually gaining (by occupation)) about 8 ' in one section of the fence line.
This was some nice 5 strand barb fencing also with stout pine posts erected and maintained by the owner of the parcel that I am surveying. Cattle rancher.
This will probably be another matter for a subsequent survey that I may do this Winter.