which really hasn't been a problem...
I'm not sure what fantasy land you're living in; but my reality paints a different picture. I'm not trying to advocate for a?ÿminimum standard governing legal descriptions, far from it. But a good place to start would be; who gets to right them.
By and large; most descriptions are fine; but I've seen deeds (a standard form you get at Office Depot) that under LEGAL DESCRIPTION it says, "As described at the County Assessor's office". When I went to the office of the Assessor, I was told:?ÿANYBODY can record ANYTHING they want, as long as it has 1" margins and is legible. That my friend, leaves a lot of room for indiscretion.?ÿ
If I am preparing the first description of a parcel, the clearest legally sufficient language describing the intent of the owners is the right way. I'm not sure how you write that in a rule, but I bet we know what it means.
When preparing a description following others, my language needs to respect the manner in which title was created and has been maintained. That might even mean telling the title company or reviewing tech that I REFUSE TO POLLUTE THE RECORD with a new description matching thier petty preferences.
Put another way... Descriptions control the largest investment most people ever make. We need to base our practice on the law, not how we feel or what sounds smooth to us.?ÿ
which really hasn't been a problem...
I'm not sure what fantasy land you're living in; but my reality paints a different picture. I'm not trying to advocate for a?ÿminimum standard governing legal descriptions, far from it. But a good place to start would be; who gets to right them.
?ÿ
What I was saying is that the legal descriptions in Oklahoma, which has a minimum standard, are not generally better than the legal descriptions of Oregon and Washington, which does not.?ÿ?ÿ
There are a lot of sections with riparian boundaries, and of course the normal north and west tiers that make it impossible to describe all areas as within "quarters".?ÿ
Sorry, I'm not feeling it.
Government Lots, including those on the north and west tiers, are still properly within quarter sections. 1/16ths? Probably not. But quarters, OK.
I'm not clear on what riparian boundaries have to do with it. Anyway, there are no natural navigable water ways within the state of Oklahoma, and no natural lakes of any size. There are now a number a man-made reservoirs, and they get barges up the Arkansas almost to Tulsa, but that is the result of man-made flood control, a very different thing from a survey perspective.
And regardless, while neither Oregon or Washington have anything like minimum standards governing legal descriptions - which really hasn't been a problem - the standards regarding Records of Survey require referencing the quarter section. Not a problem except in the rare instances such as when you are surveying a whole section and have to reference the survey as being in the NE1/4, NW1/4, SE1/4, & SW1/4 of Section....?ÿ ?ÿIf I were mapping something like one of Kent's 52,000 acre ranches under those rules the sheet heading would fill the whole page.?ÿ
I'll agree just on general principles that the whole thing could just be let alone.?ÿ
It sounds like you don't have much experience with riparian boundaries in OK. I will give you some examples when GLO records comes back on line. I am not sure what navigibility has to do with this discussion. These are the sections that present the most serious problems, but even ordinary closing sections present problems.
In a regular section describing aliquot parts works because if you use the words and apply them to the plat it leads you to the statutory method of subdividing a section. The only way to come up with a different solution is to ignore the plat. In a closing section the lotted portion doesnt work like that. Using the plat to find the NW1/4 of section 5, for example will not lead you to the same boundary that the statutory method gives you for the SW1/4. There is a gap or an overlap, and there is not a statutory way to find the NW1/4.
Sure most of the time most of the people will come to the same conclusion for the location of the 1/4, but if you remeber the discussions we had here?ÿ about finding a boundary for a 1/2 description, you will remeber that we surveyors cant even agree on a basic thing like this, much less the courts or the land owners.?ÿ
UH...........................................
UH...........................................
??It sounds like you don't have much experience...? is definitely a Kentian turn of phrase.
"It sounds like you don't have much experience with riparian boundaries in OK."
You are right that I don't have much experience with riparian boundaries in Oklahoma. No one does, in Oklahoma. Because there just aren't many riparian boundaries, if any at all, to have knowledge of in Oklahoma.
On the other hand Oregon and Washington, where I am also licensed, and have been for 20 years, have riparian boundaries in abundance. Ocean, lakes, and rivers.?ÿ I cross over 2 rivers large enough to float ocean going vessels on my drive to work. While I do not consider myself any sort of special expert on riparian?ÿ matters,?ÿ I can hardly help but to have, at the least, the knowledge common to all surveyors in these very wet states. Riparian boundaries are kind of a big deal hereabouts.
In my dealings with riparian boundaries I cannot recall a circumstance where it was much of a problem to determine which quarter section the site was in. Oh, sure, sometimes the section lines have to be protracted to do so. And in such cases the exact location of the lines may be a bit fuzzy. I will be very glad if you can show me how I am wrong with that.?ÿ?ÿ
TxDOT requires a monument at the POC, usually at the back corner of the proposed acquisition parcel.
"It sounds like you don't have much experience with riparian boundaries in OK."
You are right that I don't have much experience with riparian boundaries in Oklahoma. No one does, in Oklahoma. Because there just aren't many riparian boundaries, if any at all, to have knowledge of in Oklahoma.
On the other hand Oregon and Washington, where I am also licensed, and have been for 20 years, have riparian boundaries in abundance. Ocean, lakes, and rivers.?ÿ I cross over 2 rivers large enough to float ocean going vessels on my drive to work. While I do not consider myself any sort of special expert on riparian?ÿ matters,?ÿ I can hardly help but to have, at the least, the knowledge common to all surveyors in these very wet states. Riparian boundaries are kind of a big deal hereabouts.
In my dealings with riparian boundaries I cannot recall a circumstance where it was much of a problem to determine which quarter section the site was in. Oh, sure, sometimes the section lines have to be protracted to do so. And in such cases the exact location of the lines may be a bit fuzzy. I will be very glad if you can show me how I am wrong with that.?ÿ?ÿ
Mark,
My comment did come across too harsh. I apologize if you were offended?ÿ ?ÿYou are usually one of the posters that I respect the most, but you are wrong here. There are a lot of riparian boundaries in OK, and the nature of rivers in OK means they are more difficult to deal with then most rivers further west. I'll get you some examples soon. Both main forks of the Canadian, the Washita, the Arkansas and the Red were meandered by the GLO almost for their full lengths, and of course there are many local examples.
In some places these rivers have moved miles, with their respective lots moving with them. What purpose does identifying a 1/4 section for a lot that is now a mile into the neighboring township serve, besides adding confusion? I think adding an "if applicable ", or, "or goverment lot"?ÿ to the minimum standards would clear this up.?ÿ
I have seen many goverment agencies adopt rules like this. I understand why this is desirable for indexing purposes, but non existent quarters dont belong in the description. This is more of a problem in states like New Mexico with large areas are not sectionalized, but can also cause problems in OK.?ÿ
Aliquot,
Please explain 'lots moving with them'. Lots in the states I work in grow, shrink and can even be extinguished, but they never move.
Is OK different or am I reading too much into your post??ÿ
Either way works for me. What gripes me are the deeds that Commence...to the point of beginning. The words "point of beginning" having not previously been cited in the description.
The only thing that caught my attention in you description was the call for a line being parallel to another line.?ÿ ?ÿI was taught lines are parallel with and perpendicular to....
Yes, parallel with and perpendicular to.?ÿ I suppose one could say "traveling along a line of the same bearing as course number five, and it's parallel too!:)
Don't you just LOVE our reviewers?!!!!!
Aliquot,
Please explain 'lots moving with them'. Lots in the states I work in grow, shrink and can even be extinguished, but they never move.
Is OK different or am I reading too much into your post??ÿ
By moving, I mean the boundary moving, in other words growing or shrinking.?ÿ
OK. I get it now. The riparian boundary moves until it is outside of the quarter section it was in when the legal was written. I've always made a habit of specifying the date on which a riparian boundary was surveyed in any description or mapping of it.