Legal Description

They ain't no barren un distuns whut fitz exacterlee.

It is what it is. A call to a natural monument.

Nothing to calculate by. If you're talking about developing a work map in CAD, I'd leave the end of the line that intersects the creek as is. Nothing more to add.

THENCE IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION ALONG THE MEANDERINGS OF THE EAST BANK OF HOWELL CREEK

You can't calculate that. You have to survey the meanderings of the east bank of Howell Creek.

> Hello,
>
> "THENCE IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION ALONG THE MEANDERINGS OF THE EAST BANK OF HOWELL CREEK...;"
>
> If you were calculating this, what would you use for a bearing and a distance?
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark

THE MEANDERINGS OF THE EAST BANK OF HOWELL CREEK? 😀

Assuming it wasn't meandered for area calcs to begin with. It's also what you'd call an ambulatory boundary. This a trick question?

That might be a job for GIS man, the super hero extraordinaire.

> It's also what you'd call an ambulatory boundary...

That's a very descriptive term and I don't believe I've ever heard it before...a walking boundary. cool

I've been to a number of seminar-napping sessions and heard the term "dynamic" boundary as opposed to a "static" boundary. Ambulatory boundary is my new word of the day. I can rest now..;-)

I recently saw a description like this which said something to the effect of "along the meanderings of the east bank of Howell Creek, having a chord bearing of N00-00-00E and a chord distance of 111.11 feet to a found 1" iron pipe". This seemed like a pretty good way to handle it. It may be common for other surveyors to do this, but it was new to me.

When I took the Tennessee test, the map I was given was bounded on one side by a long curvy creek with a chord given from end to end. That's exactly how I described it.

The original call for this boundary was similar "northernly with centerline creek"

notice there is no collector on the pole or antenna, it is there to show the size of the creek

I made the actual observations along a parallel line 10ft from the top of bank to be a new division boundary, half on the east side and half on the west side so both owners would have access to water.

This was a beautiful cloudless 107°F day that I had my gobag, dove chair, straw hat and 2gal of water and some snacks on board for a 3,500ft trek.

8 to 10 Satellite signals per setup were strong and ranged from 5min to 15min for some great static results.

Most vague calls that I've followed the acreage was calculated by using a straight line between the beginning point of the creek to where it terminated and left the creek.

:stakeout:

Generally I would reserve the use of the word "chord" for use in helping to mathematically describe one non-tangent simple curve. For the portrayed example I would change the wording to a "tie line" and recite the bearing and distance.

Good Luck!

Wait until you try and figure out the Right-of-Way for Lake Howell Lane! :-S

That one is wide open. Was the creek meandered at the time the description was prepared? Is the Creek navigable? Am I even in a riparian State? Most of the States I work in that boundary was fixed by the location of the bank at parcel creation. Using the eroded bank at at later time would be tantamount to holding a disturbed monument.

Is the Boundary the bank or the center of the creek?

Yep, just grabbing that language of "east bank" by itself can be very risky. You will need more information/evidence. You've only just begun.........

Mark,
just out of curiousity are you surveying between Lake Maitland and Lake Waumpi, or between Lake Waumpi and Lake Howell?
B-)

"just grabbing that language of "east bank" by itself can be very risky."

I quess I don't understand why this is risky. Are not the words in the legal clear --ie. East Bank

Haven't done much work around lakes and creeks so I might be missing something.

> That might be a job for GIS man, the super hero extraordinaire.

[sarcasm] Exactly. He'll make it fit! [/sarcasm]

Nilsson v. Latimer, 664 SW 2d 447 - Ark: Supreme Court 1984
The general rule in Arkansas, as in other jurisdictions, is that riparian landowners on a non-navigable stream take title to the thread, or center of the stream.

It has long been a rule of property that absent an express reservation by the grantor, a conveyance of riparian property conveys title to the thread of the stream unless a contrary intention appears or is clearly inferrable from the terms of the deed.

There is some disagreement, however, as to what terms will express a contrary intention sufficient to rebut the general presumption. There is authority that land described as bounded "along the bank" or by some call in reference to the bank, or to the low-water mark, will exclude title to the bed, while a call to the river will not. But we believe the better rule of construction is that the grantee takes title to the bed, irrespective of whether the call is to the river or to the bank, if there is no specific reservation of the bed by the grantor, or a clear manifestation of such intent. The policies supporting such a rule are sound, as it is far less likely that the grantor would have any reason to retain title to the bed, where he has not reserved it, and that strip of land would be of much greater value to the grantee. Moreover, if the rule were otherwise, it would result in many instances in portions of the river beds to which title would remain in an unsettled state.

DDSM
(I know this question pertains to Florida and I'm only an Arkansas Surveyor...sorry if this breaks any BeerLeg rules);-) :beer:

> I quess I don't understand why this is risky. Are not the words in the legal clear --ie. East Bank
The risk is in identifying exactly where the "east bank" is. It is rarely unambiguously clear, on the ground, just what line was intended.