I agree with what is being said.?ÿ ?ÿGood formatting and clear information is important.?ÿ ?ÿI use "to a point" and "a distance of".?ÿ I find that I can tell who wrote the description just by the way it is word.?ÿ ?ÿMine vs my boss vs a lawyer.
"To a point" does have a purpose, but you will never convince me to use, "a distance of".?ÿ
Showing a boundary along the centerline of a road only requires a label of the centerline.?ÿ
You can present unlimited information on a plat. As many words as you need can be added.?ÿ
Then you would love NW Mass.?ÿ Not only do I see, "to a point", they use a triangle symbol for, "unmonumented point", on their plans.?ÿ?ÿ
So, there's a symbol representing....the lack of something....????
Wouldn't no symbol represent the lack of a monument?
?ÿ
?ÿ
I have done something similar with an "X" and explained in the legend that no monument was set.?ÿ It does help clarify a bit on descriptions that go from a point of commencing to a point of beginning by way of two or more otherwise unimportant lines.?ÿ For example:?ÿ Commencing at a section corner then going a certain distance down a section line, then going perpendicular to that line to a specific location which is the point of beginning of the tract.?ÿ It assists the layperson (and reviewers) in following the full description from point to point.
@norman-oklahoma?ÿ I find the use of "a distance of", "to a point" and "a bearing of" except where necessary akin to describing a car as "the color of red" or a person as being "the height of tall."?ÿ I also find the construction "Commencing at X, thence brg-dist etc. to the?ÿTrue?ÿPoint of Beginning [?ÿ .?ÿ .?ÿ .?ÿ ]" irritating.?ÿ As opposed to the "False" POB perhaps?
I work pretty hard to avoid using the "True Point of Beginning" format. Once or twice only I've been obliged to relent.?ÿ?ÿ
I don't have any problem with using "a distance of" in the way Mr. Billings is using it in his example. It is the rote repetition of it in every stanza that bothers me.?ÿ?ÿ
Rote [roht]?ÿ adjective. proceeding mechanically and repetitiously; being mechanical and repetitious in nature; routine; habitual.
?ÿ
I think the phrase is stuck as a default in legal description programs. I'd never seen it before I started using one. Much of the time formatting the description writer was spent removing phrases such as to the True, or a distance of.
It must be taught somewhere, I'd be interested to know where.?ÿ
I have used 'a distance of' when its absence could raise ambiguity, such as:
N45dW along said Parcel 2, 234 feet.?ÿ It reads better as N45dW along said Parcel 2, a distance of 234 feet.
Numbering courses seems to be a standard format for DOT descriptions.
Now we have hit the flame button!?ÿ
And again the influence of Wattles is seen.
The concept of using "Beginning" with "True Point of Beginning" is discussed in Wattles on Page 11.10 (1979), but he also comments that many use "Commencing at" followed by "Point of Beginning."
Essentially, it comes down to if you like to use "Commencing" for a call before you get to the actual parcel description.
I always had the suspicion that "True" POB has its roots in original PLSS survey lingo where lines run were "random" or "true".
?ÿ
Yeah, "true" POB has always annoyed me too, from the first time I ever saw it...the only reason to use it is if you're too lazy to use a Point of Commencement, and need to differentiate between the POB (which is actually not the POB, so why in the world would you label it as such?) and the actual POB.
I worked with a PLS who refused to use the phrase 5/8" iron rod and insisted that we spell it out as 5/8-inch iron rod because he steadfastly insisted that the quotation mark could be confused for arc-seconds...because context is never used in deciphering the meaning of English phrases. ?????ÿ
It makes your work, anybody's work harder. The intent is for the reader to pick up a document and not have to interpret, just have the information that is needed.
?ÿ
What does lazy have to do with anything? Is "Commencing at" any more difficult than "Beginning at"?
"Point of Commencement" is an interesting term, one which I have never seen start a description, but that is certainly a few more letters.
It is merely a matter of form.
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
I like to write that like so:
... along the East line of Lot 153, North 200 feet.?ÿ
That way (1) my senior call comes first, and (2) I don't have the 153, 200 problem.?ÿ
Bringing this to the top. Where do people get the idea that all block letters is good? Upper case and lower case exists because it makes text more readable.
There was a day when the description had to be typed into a small open block on a deed form. In that circumstance I get the need to limit line breaks and spacing. Those days are mostly over.
Ignore this if you actually want to get off on the wrong foot with a reviewer. Some people like to make their life harder.