That was the kicker PPM, Thanks
Thanks A Harris
Thanks Daniel, saw that too
There is no reason 'less and except' cannot be used in an easement description. Easements are rights in real property.?ÿ
'The east 5 feet of lot 6, less and except the north 5 feet thereof' is no less valid if it describes an easement than if used to describe fee transfer.
I would go from L1 cross the road intersection to C1, L10,C2,L11 cross the road on along the common line go to L2 and circle clockwise to the point of beginning
There is no reason 'less and except' cannot be used in an easement description. Easements are rights in real property.?ÿ
'The east 5 feet of lot 6, less and except the north 5 feet thereof' is no less valid if it describes an easement than if used to describe fee transfer.
i agree, but to explain the logic behind why i started doing it the way i do:?ÿ i have seen- not often, but more than a couple times- the "S&E" portion omitted or overlooked when filing a recorded document.
and i've been guilty of doing it myself a time or two when locating or drafting an easement- because i suspect that most of us have a natural tendency to mentally sew things up when we see the call that goes something like "N30E, 100.58 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING," and that our eyes can get really glossy to whatever language comes after the closing call.
the lightbulb went off for me one day 10-12 years ago when a teed-off client wanted to know why their entire parking lot was encumbered by an electric easement.?ÿ it wasn't- at least by design.?ÿ because i wrote the easement- in the "save and except/less and except" method.?ÿ and the closing call for the outer boundary just happened to be near the bottom of one page of the description.?ÿ but?ÿ whatever engineer/lawyer/admin assistant/file clerk happened to file for record either assumed everything subsequent was superfluous and they just didn't understand it was component to the whole thing, or else just accidentally left a couple pages for no reason and it happened to line up... nicely... with the way the S&E fit on the pages.
so that's why i prefer to write a single description that closes mathematically, reflects the proper area, and is contained entirely within and before a final closing call in a metes and bounds.
?ÿ
(another thought- scenarios like i described above are also why i have made a practice of forcing the closing call to the next page of a document, if otherwise only the bearing basis/cert/signature would be left isolated on a page.)
An easement is just that an easement, there can be no less and except from an easement.
...
HMM? "ingress/egress easement", then all utilities must be in their own described easements.
Paul in PA
Your confusing the idea of an easement as a property right with describing a land area.?ÿ Regardless of what the described area is intended to be used for, you can of course describe a broader area and then define the portion of that being the easement area by excepting the other portion or portions out.?ÿ I do it all the time.
Example:
A strip of land lying within the Rancho de Beretta, lying 50 feet on each side of the following described centerline.
Beginning at the intersection of State Highway 223 and 45th Avenue.?ÿ Thence S 30 degree 06 minutes W, a distance of 4570 feet to the intersection of Hwy 223 and Weatherby Boulevard.
Excepting therefrom any portions lying above the low water marks of the Dillon River.
?ÿ
The actual length of that area is variable, dependent upon the ambulatory locations of the low water marks on each side of the river, but may be only 150 feet or so of that 4570' mentioned.
If that form isn't valid, then we need to re-educate our current and former boundary and legal staff then commence to rewriting several thousand such descriptions for various easements, leases, licenses, and land exchanges, some dating back more than 70 years.
?ÿ
Unless separate grants of easement exist or are to be made for utilities and other normal roadway purposes, I agree about the use of ingress/egress as the easement purpose.?ÿ It should be for roadway purposes or something similarly broad if other normal roadway uses are considered for the same area.?ÿ Also if other uses are to occur in the same area, the term nonexclusive should also be in there, but that's more of a legal-side (attorney's province) concern.?ÿ As the land surveyor, you just want to ensure that you aren't inadvertently including words which might, in the absence of the attorney having properly and fully qualified and described the rights to be associated, be read as limiting or broadening the interpretaion of valid uses in an unintended way.
Is this AZ?
Does AZ require metes and bounds descriptions?
If not - explain to the atty that metes and bounds descriptions are the cause of many (maybe even the majority) of defective easements and deeds. Everyone would be better off with "Those lands identified as E-1 on the attached Exhibit A."?ÿ
Then - make sure E-1 is drawn with all of the consideration and checks that you would give a well written metes and bounds description (including calls to adjoiners).?ÿ
Where I am - attorneys request m&b but don't really need them - just something they learned in law school - they're often open to making the Exhibit A the best evidence of the intended lands.?ÿ
@ flying solo
I have written similar mete and bounds that contained a call that crossed thru the parcel being described in the early 1980s and it was sent back to me by the Leagal Advisor of Underwriters to a Title Co. that is was not an acceptable call.
That did agree with what I had learned in college.
At the time I was still developing my craft and had no standing response to their red pencils.
I do like the single metes and bounds description to describe a lake itself by combining the shore description with the islands shoreline in one document or that road easement that has a parcel in the middle.
The determining factor would be that when some obscure legal aide or other fact checker runs the description thru their deed check routine and the result is an excellent closure and the actual area of the intended property being encumbered.
? ??ÿ
