In practice, I include both measurements and calls to the boundaries. Too many places I see these supposed 2' strips of land or gaps or overlaps, and we all know that was never the intention. If I call to that deed and that lot, then the distances help someone understand, but I can hopefully avoid those gaps ever being contemplated.
I agree, but I have seen surveyors list, "owners unknown", even when both abutting deeds call for each other, but the math leaves a gap.
Also, I've found where the math seemed to leave a bit of a gap, and it wasn't till I traced back to the late 1800's and I found where a 12' strip was created for access, but never brought forward in any of the deeds, and was about the width of the gap formed by the math.
Exactly, and if the description had mentioned that 12' strip...
We shouldn't need a full chain of title from patent to present to make these things work!
I have to disagree on this one.?ÿ While the phase won't make the description concise, it does help prevent the bearings and distances running together, and for me, it helps prevent transposing numbers when plotting the description in CAD.
You aren't just disagreeing with me. That's nothing. You are disagreeing with Wattles as well.?ÿ
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.
I'm not trying to convince anyone to use it. Just explaining why I do.
Language has a lot if nuauinnces. I wasn't accusing you of trying to convince me.?ÿ
@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
