It makes that statement in a single paragraph of Chapter 5, then spends several pages of Chapter 13 dealing with descriptions of the sort. Granted, it largely deals with situations where the use of such descriptions can be ambiguous, but also those where the form is appropriate. Wattles covers the form in detail in Writing Legal Descriptions in a similar manner. I grant you that there are circumstances were the form can create an ambiguity, but there are plenty of cases where the form is clear and simple. ?ÿ
Beginning at .....; thence
1. bearing distance, to an item; thence
2. bearing distance, to an item; thence
I don't think I'd get into numbering the lines, but it does lessen the chance of a line being left out in the next conveyance.
I like to do it as you have it, but add calls along abutters and fences/walls/roads/etc, and then, to a iron pipe, etc.
Can you point one out? Other then a cardinal parcel being subdivided? Becasue I have never encountered one I didn't have questions about.?ÿ
The East 50 feet of Lot 60 is the west line offset 50 feet. That is standard practice in my area. Not saying that there isn't a possibility of additional evidence on the ground as to intent.
@norman-oklahoma I can't agree with you more on the "a distance of" nonsense. I seem to have seen it come preloaded in many of the legal description styles on the report writer for Autocad. I have had technicians use that to pre-populate the Math into the description but I always tell them, the Find and replace functionality of any word editor is your friend.?ÿ On the all caps pet peeve, I will willfully admit I am guilty of this on many occasions. Cheers.
?ÿ
I see zero ambiguity in paden's description, BTW. If someone were to throw in needless measurements (which are by definition less than perfect), then there must be ambiguity.
I would much rather have an aliquot part description. If there is ANY way not not recite courses and distances around a parcel, I do it. This is born out of many painful hours trying to reconcile adjoiners where the courses and distances do not seem to agree.?ÿ
IMHO (and I am always trying to learn),
This: "...south along the east margin of county road to the north line of Lot 20 as shown on said record of survey, thence easterly along said north line to the found rebar and cap (#2285) at the northwest corner of said Lot..."?ÿ
Is vastly superior to: "...S0-39-15E 250.87 feet, thence 300.98 feet, thence..."?ÿ
?ÿ
Preferable to have both, I suppose, but the bearings and distances no longer control over the called bounds.
?ÿ
I get what you are saying. Since you are referencing that point, you are not doing what the OP complained about, essentially you are naming that point as being referenced by a bound. If you were to call out, "Point A" and label it on your exhibit or survey it might have even more context, but would be unnecessary, I think.
Relying on what a surveyor thinks is standard practice is bad practice for writing legal descriptions. Standard practices change over time, and land owners and judges can't be expected to understand what a particular surveyor thought was standard practice at a specific time.?ÿ
All you have to do to avoid problems is explain how you want the east 50' to be measured. Or better yet, call for corner monuments, or a survey, in the deed.?ÿ
In the end, that is all that matters...what a surveyor thinks.?ÿIf a surveyor can lay it out on the ground, it is a valid legal description, if they cannot it is ambiguous and perhaps not valid.
?ÿ
But my point is missed, I think. There is no issue here. The meaning is clear. Do you not agree with Wattles Page 4.11 (1979 ed)?
?ÿ
@dmyhill This is fairly standard practice in this area as well.?ÿ I use it when warranted as it makes the descriptions much simpler.?ÿ It must be a regional thing, your in the PNW also, right?
And now we get to the inevitable part of this discussion where we see that content in descriptions is often dictated by regional conventions. In places with recording statutes, descriptions can be much less detailed. In places without recording statutes, descriptions must be burdened with more detail.?ÿ
I'm only familiar with Texas (a non-recording State). Most surveyors don't have problems with reconciling seemingly conflicting information in a description that contains calls for intent, adjoiners, monuments, directions, distances, coordinates, area, etc., as we rely on the dignity of calls which inform how we weight each element. Some surveyors seem to struggle with it (pin cushions). But most seem to do a good job with filtering through the available information.
One thing I very much like about your example is the ability to specify intent in a way that is not always practical on a plat. The plat may show that the boundary is along the center of the road graphically, but in text you can say "along" or "with" and clearly indicate your intent even without directions or distances (which are easily shown on the plat). It might be difficult to clearly express that the boundary is along the road or with the road on a plat.?ÿ?ÿ
