We might be talking about different things becasue I dont see how the section being regular has much to do with finding the E. 900 feet of an aliqout part. How do you locate the east 900 feet???? There are?ÿ an infinite number of?ÿ ways to do it.
Here is a partial list of ways I have seen it done:
1. Draw a cardinal north-south line and positioned it so the average width of the parcel is 900 feet.
2. A line 900 feet west measured perpendicular from the east boundary of the aliqout part.
3. A line 900 feet west, measured cardinally west from a point on the west boundary.
4. A line drawn between a point on the north boundary 900' easterly along the north boundary from the NE corner, to a point on the south boundary 900' westerly along the south boundary from the SE corner.
5. A line 900 feet from a point on?ÿ the east boundary parallel with the west boundary.?ÿ
6. A line 900 feet from a point on the east boundary on the mean bearing of the east and west boundary.?ÿ
7. A line between proportioned points based on the record distances of the north and south boundaries.
8. A line along the old fence that is approximately 900 feet from the east boundary.?ÿ
And there are more...
Of course if you explain which method you are using then all is good for the next land surveyor, but maybe not for the owners.?ÿ
You will find plenty of definitive directions in how to interpret these descriptions?ÿ in text books and trade magazines, but those definitive beliefs don't fare well when confronted with land owners and judges.?ÿ
I suppose they are not really any worse then any other non PLSS description that doesnt call for monuments though...
Things of this nature are done to combat that old problem of reading a copy of a copy of a copy.....which isn't likely to ever be a problem for any description you might write today. Descriptions you write today, and any you have written since the turn of the century,?ÿ are almost certainly going to be distributed as digital files - with copies of copies as crisp and clear 500 generations and 500 years from now as the original was the day you wrote it.?ÿ
The correct manner of interpreting such a description is well settled case law - to the point of being summarized in basic texts such as BC&LP. As you say. Sure, anyone who thinks something completely foolproof has underestimated the ingenuity of complete fools. It remains a very common and rarely questioned manner of succinctly describing parcels. I'm comfortable with it.?ÿ?ÿ
This is still often litigated and the courts are all over the place. BC&LP is a good introductory resource but there are plenty of things in there that don't alway work out the way they say it will.?ÿ
Just use Wattles - he nailed description writing perfectly!
Page 92 5th edition BC&LP:?ÿ
"Many landowners, attorneys, and others commonly use the "of " type of descriptions, as in..."the south 3 acres of lot 3"...Surveyors should strive to refrain from using this type of description because of the possibility of creating future problems for both land owners and other surveyors. Such descriptins are wrought with possibilities for misunderstanding and errors".?ÿ
?ÿ
"A distance of",?ÿ annoys me the same way as, "rate of speed", "pin number", and "plat map" do.?ÿ
ATM machine??ÿ?ÿ
There are several ways to write a good description. It seems that a lot depends on what part of the country you are in as to what elements are absolutely critical for a good description. So I try not to be an absolutist. Having said that, there are a number of ways to write a poor description regardless of where you are.?ÿ
@paden-cash I would consider this to be a great preamble to a good description, but the description could be more detailed to rule out ambiguity. I think the preamble should express the intent and at times some aspects of the chain of title. The body of the descriptions should clearly describe the metes (measurements) and the bounds (the monuments).
These types of descriptions in PLSS lands were usually written by land owners, attorneys, or someone not surveyors. I have normally found them to be in good condition on the ground, often monumented. But I'm sure regionally it differs from what I've seen. It's a function of the PLSS to use the section lines/16th lines as bounds and work off them.?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
South "3 acres" is a completely different kettle of fish than "South 300 feet". The first one is ambiguous, the second is not.
Saying that a lawyer can find evidence and fight the actual location of the line is not necessarily (in itself) an indication of a poor or ambiguous legal description. The plain language of all sorts of documents are litigated in an attempt to define the true intent.
When you say "to a point" I assume that those are monumented. Do you call out the monuments in your legal description?
The occasional use of "a distance of" is not bothersome and often appropriate. It is the rote repetition on the phrase with every single call that wears me out.
When you use automated legal writing software...it doesn't ask, "Do I really need to put 'a distance of' here?"
I am guessing that is part of the reason. Also, if you are creating a standard, a format and form for a company, sometimes it is easier to require something that doesn't ever hurt if it will be needed sometimes. When I started off, I hated the refrain, "Because that is just the way we do it." Now, as I have moved into different positions with different companies, I understand the comfort of having a "the way we do it".
?ÿ
For the record, I have stopped with the extra, "distance" words.?ÿ
I do use them in cases like the following:
North, along the East line of Lot 153, a distance of 200 feet.
Yes, I could use a comma, but I am not fan of having writing "153, 200" and hoping that everyone understands what I mean. Sure, it is unlikely that I mean 153,200 feet, and I can hope that people have some sense. However, hope is not a plan (unless we start talking theology).
?ÿ
For those that like to use "a distance of" in every call, why do you not precede every bearing recital with "a bearing of"? Or do you??ÿ
All hope is lost for ye whom enter here.......
?ÿ
?ÿ
???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????ÿ
No, not usually. In my description, if I use "to a point" it's because the point is not monumented (a point in a creek, or lake, or road, etc.) It's almost always accompanied by a witness monument though.
THENCE N 10?ø00'00" W with this West line and East line of State Highway No. 172, being 60.00 feet Easterly from its center, a distance of 500.00 feet to a 3/4 inch iron pipe found at a fence corner for this Northwest corner, being the Southwest corner of a called 5.00 acre tract of land described in a deed to John Smith as recorded in Volume 1234, Page 567, Deed Records, Gregg County, Texas, having geographic coordinates of North Latitude 32?ø00'00.0000" and West Longitude 94?ø00'00.0000";
THENCE N 80?ø00'00" E with this North line and South line of the Smith called 5.00 acre tract, generally along a wire fence, at 75.00 feet passing a 1 inch iron pipe found for the Southeast corner of the Smith tract and Southwest corner of a called 7.00 acre tract of land described in a deed to James Jones as recorded in Volume 1200, Page 500, Deed Records, Gregg County, Texas, and continuing an additional distance of 100.00 feet for a total distance of 175.00 feet to a point in the center of Turtle Creek for this Northeast corner and Northwest corner of the above referenced Washington called 12.515 acre tract, having geographic coordinates of North Latitude 32?ø00'00.0000" and West Longitude 94?ø00'00.0000", witness a 1/2 inch rebar with aluminum ID cap stamped "SHAWN BILLINGS - RPLS 5688" set on the East bank of the creek for reference bearing N 80?ø00'00" E, 30.00 feet;
I think with all of that information, someone wanting to enter the calls into their survey software will appreciate the distinctions in how I give distances. If they find "a total distance of" or "a distance of" they have the distance for the call even though I may have lots of distances sprinkled in the call.?ÿ
As for "to a point" I only use that if there is nothing specific at the point to mark it. I have seen descriptions that read "to a point marked with a 1/2 inch rebar". I'm not a fan. I can work with it, but it seems like there are now two things at the corner: a point and a 1/2 inch rebar. The two may be occupying the same space but maybe not. Am I looking for the mathematical point or the physical monument? As a matter of practicality I don't think it really creates a problem, but it itches my brain a bit.
I don't see how it is any better, in one the distance is uncertain, in the other the area, and thus the measurement is uncertain.?ÿ BC&LP seems to?ÿ agree with me. The missing examples where the ... was in my quote include, " the easterly 50 feet of lot 6".?ÿ
?ÿ