I'm writing legals for right of way taking. Widening a 33' road, as platted, to 50 feet. Old part of town, old (1920's and prior) plats.
The vesting deeds typically describe the existing tracts as, for example, "the south 55 feet of Lot 1" and the adjacent lot to the north as "the north 85 feet of Lot 1". Which may leave a hiatus, of course.
I'm not looking to resolve these problems by doing chains of title, etc. I just want to be sure that my legals don't leave a hiatus in the takings.
What sort of verbage would you use in this situation?
What I've seen used is "except the N/S/W/E xx feet" or seen it called out on the plat with a reference to the book and page along with the distance taken.
i'm not exactly clear on the question, but i've always addressed any taking along such lines thusly: first, reference the vesting deed completely, including recording info and grantee. then address any calls to, from, or along such lines as (depending upon the amount of evidence you have) the apparent/occupied/fenced/monumented (whichever apply) south line of said volume xxx, page xxx Smith tract.
otherwise the issue of potential conflicts can mushroom into you, as you suggest, solving the problems of who knows how many people...
i hope that's what you're asking.
> I'm writing legals for right of way taking. Widening a 33' road, as platted, to 50 feet. Old part of town, old (1920's and prior) plats.
>
> The vesting deeds typically describe the existing tracts as, for example, "the south 55 feet of Lot 1" and the adjacent lot to the north as "the north 85 feet of Lot 1". Which may leave a hiatus, of course....
> What sort of verbage would you use in this situation?
The job of the right-of-way taker is to define the right-of-way, not the lines that define private ownership.....
I would define the taking out of the original parcel as it should (have) been: IE. The west 10 feet of the north 85 feet of lot one....
...the west 10 feet of lot 1, except the north 85 feet.....
Or vice-a-versa, depending on the flavor of the day...:snarky:
Dougie
Well he has to solve enough of the problem to know how much he is taking from each land owner.
> I would define the taking out of the original parcel as it should (have) been: IE. The west 10 feet of the north 85 feet of lot one....
>
> ...the west 10 feet of lot 1, except the north 85 feet.....
>
> Or vice-a-versa, depending on the flavor of the day...:snarky:
In order to do that I would have to run a chain of title back to - probably - around the time the plat was recorded. I'd prefer to avoid that.
Clarification-----verbiage not verbage
ver·biage noun ?v?r-b?-ij also -bij : speech or writing that contains too many words or that uses words that are more difficult than necessary
Definition of VERBIAGE
1: a profusion of words usually of little or obscure content
2: manner of expressing oneself in words : diction
Examples of VERBIAGE
The editor removed some of the excess verbiage from the article.
NOT the least of the many trials inflicted upon the Boston Red Sox has been a torrent of verbiage. Surely no team in recent memory has been so scrutinized, complained about and then elegized. —Charles McGrath, New York Times Book Review, 13 Aug. 2006
Fashionable courtiers in the Renaissance adopted the doublet. … The cotton padding of this jacket, called bombast (the source of the term for inflated verbiage), was gradually increased to give courtiers the pumped-up look. —John Tierney, New York Times, 21 Jan. 1999
To find the height of arcane verbiage look no farther than Rule 10 of the rules governing Major League Baseball, in what is known as the Blue Book. The corresponding entry explains the waivers system—the procedures that pertain to certain player transactions—in a way that makes the Magna Carta look like part of the Jackie Collins oeuvre. —Tom Verducci, Sports Illustrated, 25 Aug. 1997
Sure, some contract verbiage is so objectionable, it can be considered against public policy; in fact, the most arduous hold-harmless clauses would probably be thrown out of court. —Leon H. Ciesla, Plane & Pilot, March 1995
Is word processing truly the wonder it seems or will it turn out to be but a mere exercise in verbose verbiage? —Erik Sandberg-Diment, New York Times, 26 June 1984
[+]more[-]hide
Origin of VERBIAGE
French, from Middle French verbier to chatter, alteration of Old French verboier, verbloier, from Old French (Picard dialect) werbler to trill — more at warble
First Known Use: circa 1721
Legal Description verbiage
how about:
that portion of lot 1 lying within the following described strip of land....
...containing xx.x acres, more or less.
Describe a centerline that begins say... West of the west extent of your road and ends east of the east extent of your road.
Then in your descriptions call for the strip you are taking outside of the existing right-of-way within each parcel along the road.
> The ODOT way
I'm very familiar with the ODOT way. Trouble is, I'm the only one in Oklahoma that is. One of the reasons that I'm asking this question is that I've been doing this sort of thing the ODOT way for years. Now I need another way.
I see.
Kevin, perhaps you are not aware that Oregon is my state of first registry. While there, writing legals for ODOT was one of my specialties. Thanks for the very excellent suggestion. But it just isn't going to fly in OKC.
Mark, I am aware you formerly practiced in Oregon. I even shared a table with you at a couple of Pioneer Chapter meetings.
I just thought that method might be an excellent remedy for the situation you mention. Does that style not meet OK law or is it a problem with the preferences of your client?
What about describing the North right-of-way line of the widened road and except any portion of lands described in Deed xxx lying North of said line?
Obviously use the same strategy to describe the widening on the south side.
So... In your example. There is a platted 33' wide public road and the lots are described as a north portion and a south portion? I am having a hard time visualizing this.
So Lot 1 is 85' + 55' + 33'(road) = 183' (north to south)? Or is it only 150' with no road?
If there is a platted road somewhere between these portions of the lots I don't see how a hiatus could exist in your description if you call the new widened right-of-way line and the existing right-of-way line. This also seems like a very strange way for two lots to be described as portions of a singular lot on either side of a public road on a plat?
Maybe a diagram of the situation would clarify this for me.
However, if there were no road and only a south portion and a north portion of the lot there would be the possibility of a hiatus.
Picture a lot running 130 feet (plat distance) north and south adjacent to a north south road that is 33 feet wide. The lot, which actually measures 132 feet instead of 130 has the two descriptions provided. Without doing a full survey of said fractions of the lot, how do you write a precise description for the two strips you need to acquire to widen the road?
In PLSSia it is common to find wording such as, "to the south line of the northwest quarter" with no precise distance listed and an adjacent parcel coming from the south up to "the north line of the southwest quarter". The obvious problem is that, without a full survey, you don't know how to describe the section lines any better. Thus, we have thousands of descriptions for highway takings that read something like, "Beginning at the southwest corner of Section 15, thence easterly 50 feet along the south section line; thence north along a line parallel with and 50 feet distant from the west section line, 2640 feet, more or less, to the north line of said southwest quarter; thence westerly along the quarter section line 50 feet to the west quarter section corner; thence south, 2640 feet, more or less, along the west section line to the point of beginning and containing X.xx acres, more or less."
Not very precise, but, it is what was used for many decades.
The question, as I see it, that started this thread is how to handle more precise descriptions without actually resurveying each abutting tract to find the true outer boundary so that a precise new taking description can be made. And, even more importantly, what do you do when those adjacent descriptions do not agree on where their common boundary is located in the first place.
If I have the situation shown correctly here--
--the question is how to write the legals in such a way as to not leave a gap in the new ROW between what Smith and Jones would be conveying to the city.
Of course ROW descriptions generally start out by reciting the description of the parent parcel from which the ROW strip is being taken, such as, "That part of the north 85 feet of Lot 1...lying west of [described line] and east of [call for previous ROW plat]."
It would be possible to change the recited description of either Smith or Jones's parent parcel to eliminate the gap on paper. But that wouldn't solve the problem of title to the gap. If there is a gap, neither Smith nor Jones owns it. It probably belongs to the heirs of a long-dead underlying owner.
A big part of the answer has to do with how knowledgeable the city staff and/or their lawyers are, and whether they have any interest in the matter. If they do, perhaps they could condemn all such gaps from the unknown parties who own them. If they don't understand or don't care, perhaps the only thing possible would be to send a letter telling them about the possibility of gaps.
I see. Perhaps a road resolution process in lieu of a taking through a commissioners office or equivalent with public notice of the proposed route to cover the entire desired entire 50ft width?
> If I have the situation shown correctly here--
Your sketch exactly illustrates the circumstances. Thank you.
> --the question is how to write the legals in such a way as to not leave a gap in the new ROW between what Smith and Jones would be conveying to the city.
Yes.
> ...that wouldn't solve the problem of title to the gap. If there is a gap, neither Smith nor Jones owns it. It probably belongs to the heirs of a long-dead underlying owner.
Hmmm. Maybe. I would be willing to assume that the owner of the senior parcel, would get the remainder. There is no gap in spite of the appearance of one from a rote reading of the deeds. I can produce case law and textbook references that supports that thinking. But I don't know which parcel is senior and would prefer to avoid going through the effort to determine which one is.
> Picture a lot running 130 feet ......
Well put.