In a metes and bounds state, what do you guys/gals do when you have legal descriptions for the same parcel that don't agree? I like to call out the adjoiners and common corners. I also like to say something like: "...to an iron rod, said rod being a common corner to {someone} {someone's tax map or parcel ID} and {someone else} {someone else's tax map or parcel ID); thence, with the line of {adjoiner to next course & distance} to a {whatever}, said point being a common corner to...."
Bearing and distances are insignificant if you are calling out adjoiners. As long as the cardinal is in the same quadrant.
This comes in particularly handy when having to do a metes and bounds description for an ALTA/ACSM survey.
In court, as long as you call out common lines and common corners in your description, that will hold over any variance in your bearings and distances.]
Keep in mind, courts will always try to determine "Intent".
Thoughts?
Tax map ID's and tax parcel ID's have no legal description significance where I work. The adjoiners and their title reference also need to be called out.
If you find the bounds for your surveyed parcel and they match the adjoiner's bounds, you need to provide an up to date metes and bounds description.
I think I've heard that the tax parcel ID's are subject to change at the whim of the assessor's GIS people. Not that it happens often, but a possibility that would add considerable confusion if seen years down the road.
> I think I've heard that the tax parcel ID's are subject to change at the whim of the assessor's GIS people. Not that it happens often, but a possibility that would add considerable confusion if seen years down the road.
Yes, it could cause some confusion, but really this would be no different than the owner's name changing by transferring the property. The description would be correct at the time it was written.
Stephen
>
>
> If you find the bounds for your surveyed parcel and they match the adjoiner's bounds, you need to provide an up to date metes and bounds description.
We've been around the block a few times with this one, haven't we? Not saying I disagree, but plenty here do.
Stephen
> ... tax parcel ID's are subject to change at the whim of the assessor ....
Suggest using the Book/Page of the adjoiners deed instead. That will be record forever.
> In a metes and bounds state, what do you guys/gals do when you have legal descriptions for the same parcel that don't agree? I like to call out the adjoiners and common corners. I also like to say something like: "...to an iron rod, said rod being a common corner to {someone} {someone's tax map or parcel ID} and {someone else} {someone else's tax map or parcel ID); thence, with the line of {adjoiner to next course & distance} to a {whatever}, said point being a common corner to...."
>
We use the priority of calls, senior rights, and lines and corners as established.
Whether the adjoiners are called out or not, the intent of all parties involved is to match property line to property line and corner to corner. No one intends to leave a foot and a half of land here or there, so I don't think that calling for adjoiners is a legal necessity. It could help clear things up in certain circumstances, but I doubt that it is a legal panacea.
> Bearing and distances are insignificant if you are calling out adjoiners. As long as the cardinal is in the same quadrant.
>
What do you mean by the "same quadrant"? What is the significance of that?
> In court, as long as you call out common lines and common corners in your description, that will hold over any variance in your bearings and distances.]
>
> Keep in mind, courts will always try to determine "Intent".
>
If it's true in court then it should be true everywhere and for all players in real property transactions. You may be referring to the Priority of Calls or the Rules of Construction, which occasionally list "Record Adjoiner" over record bearings or distances".
I have nothing against calls for record adjoiners but I've always thought that it doesn't offer much in the way of practical help. You still have to retrace their deed and compare to the subject property, which most surveyors would do anyway most of the time. So, I've always thought that the result would be the same, whether the call was in your legal description or not.
Stephen
"We've been around the block a few times with this one, haven't we? Not saying I disagree, but plenty here do."
Just saying how it is here. For those who disagree, you won't be doing boundary surveying here.
Unless it's an up to date description which meets state standards, it just won't be recorded. If you can't do a survey which produces a description for conveyance which is recordable, what are you left to do.
Must be different in other areas. I've never seen a tax map# or parcel id# in a deed. Can't imagine why one would appear in a deed. I'm not even sure where or why I'd look one up. Probably it's on the GIS somewhere, I suppose but I've never paid any attention to them. I'm not putting addresses in my legals either.
Tax numbers are crap in Texas. Never use them. Only deeds in which they are mentioned were written by people not in the surveying profession. Gis stuff around here is total crap also. Not much better than a handout directing people to a garage sale.
Been a tough week.
John Harmon
Tax numbers find there way into deeds created for Sheriff auctions. Those descriptions are in no way a resemblance of a metes and bounds or any normal property description. No reference is made to prior deeds containing correct property descriptions or give any evidence of dimensions or other factors that would help survey the property.
They may as well have written that they are conveying the property that the man from South Texas with fair hair had lived during the 1930s.
😉
I normally use something like:
Thence N***E a distance of #### along the common line with property now or formerly owned by Joe Smith to a #4 rebar;
I do show the deed/plat reference on the plat.
Andy
I agree with A. Harris - When I see a tax id, parcel number or a property address mentioned in a conveyance, you can usually bet that there is an attorney writing or recopying some prior deed and "saving his client the cost of a new survey"...
If tax ID# mean something in a deed I should probably reference my deeds by the social security # of the adjoiner instead of the book and page and their names.
> In a metes and bounds state, what do you guys/gals do when you have legal descriptions for the same parcel that don't agree? ?
I would say you use the most accurate, up-to-date legal description and reference the plat where the legal came from.
Usiing calls like
Thence N45-34-54W , 224.50' along land now or formerly of Smith to a 5/8" rebar up 12" is also common.
:good:
Descriptions Not Agreeing ?
We often find a deed with an ancient description that does not agree with a more recent survey. The ancient description is given first, the "more particulary described in a survey by ABC, LS, dated 9/10/11 as follows" then the new description. In a resurvey those I work with only continue the new description.
An interesting survey I assisted on was of an exception parcel from a lot bounding the PQ on four sides. The other two sides fronted a road and a railroad. Four pins with caps were located within tolerance of the outlying lot measures, as well as the original exception description by surveyor A. The pins and caps were by surveyor B. Subsequently surveyor C shortened the rear line, holding all 6 bearings and adjusting distances with a new description. Surveyor D continued C's description and called 2 IPC's off by a tenth. Since there was sufficient evidence to return to the original description I suggested that. The surveyor signing the survey said he would hold the current record. With the numerous transfers of the PQ the parent parcel (the only adjoiner) has remained intact.
Had the rear line been made longer instead over the course of the years it may change some's opinions.
I believe the original question was for PQ descriptions not agreeing and the strength of bounds calls. In my example the record of bounds calls (bounds to monuments and bounds to adjoiners) was a scattered hodgepodge.
Paul in PA
I agree with most of what the others have said. I have never written a property description with any reference to a tax map and parcel I.D. Tax maps have no legal standing and I will not give them any more legality by referencing them in my descriptions.
> In a metes and bounds state, what do you guys/gals do when you have legal descriptions for the same parcel that don't agree? I like to call out the adjoiners and common corners. I also like to say something like: "...to an iron rod, said rod being a common corner to {someone} {someone's tax map or parcel ID} and {someone else} {someone else's tax map or parcel ID); thence, with the line of {adjoiner to next course & distance} to a {whatever}, said point being a common corner to...."
>
> Bearing and distances are insignificant if you are calling out adjoiners. As long as the cardinal is in the same quadrant.
>
> This comes in particularly handy when having to do a metes and bounds description for an ALTA/ACSM survey.
>
> In court, as long as you call out common lines and common corners in your description, that will hold over any variance in your bearings and distances.]
>
> Keep in mind, courts will always try to determine "Intent".
>
> Thoughts?
My thoughts are that much of what you said is incorrect. In a metes and bounds state, if you have conflicting legal descriptions (read Field Notes in Texas), then the burden is upon the surveyor to figure out the old chicken and egg issue (read junior/senior rights). Just because someone calls out to be with a line, doesn't make them common with them. While I agree that many times when a corner could be positioned in multiple locations, and one of them nearly agrees with an existing corner, and you are working from venerable field notes, then "correcting" ambiguity by calling for the line can work to clear up confusion.
Mr. Wattles was fanatic about the fact that field note descriptions should not call for junior lines if you are a senior tract, but if you are a junior tract, then calling for the senior line is appropriate.
As far as bearings and distances being insignificant, that's just bogus, especially the quadrant component to your argument. Take a bounded description, then you may be right, but each tract, as you are aware, especially in M&B states, cannot be viewed in a vacuum. Instead, the tract must be considered with respect to it's lineage and other tracts in the area.
As far as intent goes, there is a court case in Texas that specifically states, and it's out of Shelby County, Texas, that intent can only be gleaned by the surveyor, from application of the 4 corner rule. That being said, not all corners and descriptions are created equal, and once the lineage of the tract is solved, and the 4 corner rule applied to see if there are latent or patent ambiguities, then and only then can one begin to decide whether or not to call for another line.
This entire argument only works if there are no monuments available. If there are, and you have conflicting calls, then you better not call for a tract if the adjoining monuments do not agree with your tract.
I'm puzzled by the original statement and what is being baited for here.
:good:
