It's basically a rectangle that has a 25' right of way lessed out on the north side, and a 150' X 135' lessed out parcel at the NW corner.
It starts off with a metes and bounds legal that is fine. The last two sentences are:
"Less and except the north 25' for right of way. And less and except the north 150' of the west 135'."
So, question is, should the south line of the lessed out parcel be 150' south of the centerline of the right of way, or 175' south of the centerline of the right of way?
In the field, it is staked (Iron rods in concrete) and occupied (fenceline) at 175' from the centerline, and I'm inclined to hold those monuments as a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous deed, unless someone wants to talk me out of it.
:good:
Me. "What's the difference?"
T.C. Carroll "It's the difference between right and wrong!"
based on the description provided I would have held the 150' from the property line, which according to your comment is the centerline of the way? The leased 25' is one half the R/W?
"Less and except the north 25' for right of way. And less and except the north 150' of the west 135'." means the rest of the parcel and excludes the leased area and right of way.
It in fact be a description of nothing.
Paul in PA
The metes and bounds description runs to the centerline of a 50' wide right if way, then it lesses the north 25' for right of way, and lesses the north 150' of the west 135' for a separate parcel.
It appears that the previous surveyor measured 150' from the right of way line, which makes the distance from the north boundary of metes and description to the south boundary of the parcel 175' (150' + 25').
That's a royal screw-up. The exception by deed should ignore the right-of-way even existing, then the right-of-way over the north 25 should apply to what is now two tracts although it was created while it was still the original tract. Otherwise, one could contend that the right-of-way jumps down to below the rectangle that has already been excepted out of the original.
Words are a terrible thing to have come out incorrectly.
The wording of a document should be so clear that five people could read it independently and all provide an identical description of its intent.
If it said "reserve" the north 25' for right-of-way, I would suggest that the ownership included the right of way, but that it was reserving an easement for right-of-way purposes.
If it is saying "less and except", I would think they are not including the 25 feet in their deed transfer (it is excepted out). Then if the next statement says less and except the 150 feet, then you would take the additional 150 feet (of the west 135') off, agreeing with the found monuments.
If the description is ambiguous, then I would agree also, that you go to the extrinsic evidence to resolve the ambiguity.
I am thinking to treat it similar to Jr./Sr. rights. Do the research to see which less and except came first. If the conveyance for the 25' was first then at a later date the 150' was sold then the total would be 175'
If the 150' came first then the 25' then the total would be 150'.
If done at the same time use the found evidence.
Looks good from here.
[sarcasm]I can't see it from my house.[/sarcasm]
> In the field, it is staked (Iron rods in concrete) and occupied (fenceline) at 175' from the centerline, and I'm inclined to hold those monuments as a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous deed, unless someone wants to talk me out of it.
I think monuments and occupation are pretty good evidence of what the intent of the deed is even if the deed doesn't spell it out all the clearly.
Cy
I would carry that thought one step ffurther. Some owners create reservations by selling parcels 'except' what they intend to keep. In that case construing the Deed against the grantor may be appropriate. Point being the word reserve does not need to be there to make it a reservation. As for the pins, what pedigree exists? Absent evidence to impeach them it's hard to get past them...