Gee...I didn't realize that this was a forum of Texas law legal experts. I actually thought that the posters here were surveyors. You're right though....I am quite confident that I know more about the legal aspects of real estate than the average surveyor.
There's a big difference in describing metes and bounds and conducting an actual survey. Besides creating a metes and bounds description isn't brain surgery. And exactly where is the conflict of interest in me describing a piece of property that I own?
I'm also guessing it was an "expert" who created the 0.1 foot closing gap in the first place. I wonder how that could have possibly happened? I'm not even a surveyor and I managed to discover it.
Your redundant, it a tell for being an imbecile.
Actually an easement will be claimed but can only be after the initial adverse possession ownership is established. The next step would be to claim and "easement by way of necessity". Again...this is all Texas law and may not apply elsewhere.
> My first post...I'm a builder type but not a surveyor. I hope you guys can help me out. I'm trying to create metes and bounds for three areas inside a house on an essentially rectangular...or parallelogram type lot. My measurements and angles of the lot are pulled from a survey created in reliance upon a document created between the developers and a utility provider.
>
> I'm finding a closing gap of about .1 feet on what is essentially a 60 ft by 105 ft lot. My question is...should I simply reference on of the closed corners in establishing the metes and bounds disregarding and not mentioning the closing gap or should I indicate that the closing gap exists somewhere on my survey?
>
> I'm not in a position to have a survey in the property but I need to develop the metes and bound rather quickly.
Yes, you should mention the closing gap in your metes and bounds description. And since we're dealing with rooms inside a structure, the .1 closing error is unacceptable. You should carry the closing error out to at least three decimal places.
Hope this helps.
Thanks! It does help. One more question though....when establishing a POB for each of the areas, would it be best to reference it to one of the closed corners rather than the one with the gap?
You're using ad hominem attacks and name calling rather than presenting any type of intelligent discussion, it's a tell for being a complete asshat!
Speaking just for myself, I want to thank you for the most interesting post we have had in quite a while. I especially liked the part where you told Kent he knew nothing of adverse possession and should look into it more- that made me smile. They seem to be jerking your chain pretty hard but if you knew them better you would realize that it was really pretty mild and mostly done out of habit. (Surveyors are a pretty anal, cantankerous lot). I'm very curious as to whether this will work or not. Would you follow up and let us know? I hate not hearing "the rest of the story".
>
>
> There's a big difference in describing metes and bounds and conducting an actual survey. .
In my state you do not have to be a surveyor or a lawyer to write up a metes & bounds description or prepare a deed. I an not licensed and I have written around eight deeds that have since been recorded and the property was transferred.
> Thanks! It does help. One more question though....when establishing a POB for each of the areas, would it be best to reference it to one of the closed corners rather than the one with the gap?
Actually the gap exists on each corner. It's just a matter of where you start the closure calculations. Always use the Northwest corner as a POB.
Hope this helps.
hmmmm, writing a metes and bounds on the inside from a description for measurements on the outside?
Wow...
Thanks!
I should mention that I have exact measurements on the floor-plan of the house and it's positioning on the lot...or at least it's perimeter has been established. I;m relying on a previous survey done for a title company for those measurements.
I have done a good bit of real estate development in the past....primarily the development of medical professional condominiums where buyer just own whats inside the building. I may be wrong but I am under the impression that the metes and bounds for the individual condominiums were established by referencing a point on the land outside the buildings.
> Speaking just for myself, I want to thank you for the most interesting post we have had in quite a while. I especially liked the part where you told Kent he knew nothing of adverse possession and should look into it more- that made me smile. They seem to be jerking your chain pretty hard but if you knew them better you would realize that it was really pretty mild and mostly done out of habit. (Surveyors are a pretty anal, cantankerous lot). I'm very curious as to whether this will work or not. Would you follow up and let us know? I hate not hearing "the rest of the story".
I was thinking that myself. I find quite humorous what you told Kent, but being a new person to this forum, I sort of understand how you could tell someone he knows nothing of a topic just by a response to a post.
I would say that there is a conflict of interest in you writing your own metes and bounds. One, they won't be binding, being that you are not a RPLS. Two, they are for a piece of property that you "own." Three, if it were to go to court, your metes and bounds will not hold up(ie refer to my first problem).
I'm going to assume you are not a lawyer, but even if you were, using a lawyer's logic on a surveyor's problem is what makes for many errors in the recording process. I don't know how many times we've run up against problems cause by some uninformed lawyer writing documents that have no real basis of being.
Now, on to your problem at hand. Your premise of your information is flawed being that you didn't refer back to a subdivision plat or legal document to begin with. It was "created in reliance upon a document created between the developers and a utility provider." If that document wasn't recorded, your exercise is moot to begin with. If it were recorded, I would then want to know how you are describing the pieces of property that you want to adversely possess. How were these corners found? How are you going to lay claim to a portion of a house and stake it correctly? Your logic, although being correct in some regards, is flawed by stating you won't need a survey to convey the property. You're subdividing a piece of property, which will need to be recorded in the county in which it resides. The only way that I am aware of, that allows you to record a subdivision, is by a survey. You just can't automagically subdivide a lot to make it fit within your parameters of the law.
I'd tread lightly on what you are trying to do, because if the Board ever caught wind of what you are trying to do you could be fined.
It is just like a condominium plan.
Take a fresh look at those that you have worked with previously and go from there.
I'm not real sure why everyone is getting their panties all knotted, this isn't really a big issue.
Your error of closure can be balanced out, if you want, or ignored, for your purposes.
Dtp
HA: Most of the plats I deal with over 10 years old have at least a 0.1 problem either with the plat or the distance between the monuments. Many of the plats I deal with over 40 years old have at least a 0.5’ problem either with the plat or the distances between the monuments. Every surveyor on this board has dealt with errors; it is impossible not to have them. In the measurments you provide for the description I bet several errors of more that 0.1' would be found by those on the board if asked to relocate at a latter date.
For a professional surveyor to read a description and attempt to locate it deals with the intentions of the parties and a hierarchy of calls. It is usually surprising to the non surveyor how far down the list distances are.
If it is your intention to describe a bedroom, bathroom or any other room for that matter the room will control and 0.1’ error would be inconsequential. To me a sketch of the house should be attached to the description to help with its location and intention.
Not complicated which any second year survey student should have been able to answer.
> I'm not real sure why everyone is getting their panties all knotted, this isn't really a big issue.
The major issue that I'm having is that he is practicing the profession of surveying without a license. If I were you, I'd have a problem with that as well. Do you like the fact that you had to pass a complicated test, based on law and surveying practices, and he doesn't? He has stated as a matter of fact, that he has no intention to have this "property" surveyed, but is asking for a professional opinion of a situation that he is facing. A situation that should be resolved by a LICENSED surveyor. If you don't see this as a problem, then you shouldn't complain when a lowball firm comes into your area and cuts you out of all your work. Or when a construction surveyor starts staking property corners... the list goes on.
:good:
And then he goes on to insult those who are offering him advice...for free!!!
-V
> You obviously don't understand the concept of adverse possession.
Oh, I just about spit coffee all over the monitor. That made me smile.
Hard, Your path is determined and thank you for coming to the board to ask your question. The small details of the closure do not matter, please listen to those whom have reiterated this. It's the intent writing in the language. You can use Plus or minus all day on your distances to close upon the features that are controlling. I too would hope that you will provide the final chapter hereon when you are finished. Seems intriguing. In closing, I'd be mindful of whom you confront or dismiss herein about being an expert or not as many many folks are experts in most matters of real estate, title, and possession from Texas. Your council may be calling upon them, or cross examining them in a Texas court. Good luck with your endeavors.
I agree. That's why I'm developing a full sketch of the house on the plat with the areas to be claimed to be shown as shaded or hatched. I intend to also include the metes and bounds (along with adequate descriptions) to simply further illustrate the intent of the document....which is what the courts are really looking for.
The lot perimeter measurements on the copy of the survey I have are.....
S89d24'10"E 105.15
S00d40'30"W 60.75
N89d24'10"W 105.10
N00d37'40"E 60.75
It says that bearings were based on the subdivision plat and four separate recorded easement agreements.
One question that does arise is whether to attempt to claim only the inside of the rooms themselves or to also include the walls surrounding those rooms including exterior rooms. By claiming the walls...at least initially (remember I can amend the filing if necessary)I could in theory have the right to install additional entry doors for access.....just a thought.