Sometimes a surveyor can solve problems. A client wants to grant his family trust land to a younger family member. This place is now a rental property sitting inside of a larger tract with separate trust ownerships.?ÿ
The Bounds describes the tract sitting in xx4xx4 of section x lying west of the west ROW, bounded on the north, west and south buy a fence. It creates this bounds description by stating; leaving the ROW thence SW, xxx.xx' along said fence line to a fence corner,?ÿ thence SE, xx' along said fence to a fence corner, thence NE, xx' along said fence line to the ROW line, thence NW, xxx' along said ROW to the POB.?ÿ
Problem is that there needs to be 5 courses to describe the fence, not 3. And using the metes which closes .005' leaves out some acreage, also the beginning tie is 10' off and doesn't hit the fence line. There are no monument calls beyond two fence corners which do fit the section corner tie. The closed metes calculates to .99 acres. The fence encompasses 1.13 acres. This fence predates the original creation of the tract.?ÿ
The land owner doesn't want to re-build the fence to follow the metes and if he did part of the fence would end up in a swamp. "Fixing" the lines with a BLA would be a process of reviews, approval, fees, ect.
My opinion is that's not necessary. I will update the description to follow the bounds and the intent of the original description, file a Record of Survey explaining what happened and continue on. The good thing is everyone is family so they are all onboard.?ÿ
Having the bounds described saved them.
Always describe the parcel when you write a description, figure out how the property can be described without any metes and do that first.?ÿ
Thank you.
I always look forward to the continued learning I get from this site.
?ÿ
I love a verbose description that really gets into the intent of the transfer.?ÿ I think you are absolutely correct in throwing out the numbers and using the words.?ÿ And a line from point A to point B does not always mean a straight line.
The math gets you to the monument (the fence). It is unfortunate the description has to be fiddled with. In a perfect world the following surveyors would know the order of calls...
you are good, I would do it the same way... except if some public agency decides it does not "conform and" demands some set of fees and magic dance to make it OK... or if one of the neighboring properties has a new owner and They insist it Must be something different.
I feel it is always best to suggest (in writing) some method(s) to clean up the ambiguity... These things always come back to bite me (and the client) ages later.
Beware the GIS (thought) police.
Wouldn't it be fair to use both in the description??ÿ After all, the fence might not be there forever.
You're saying that the metes close within 0.005' to corners is a problem. That pretty much tells you the corners are the monuments. Putting some courses in there to follow the bounds does not really change the distances to any great extent. No need to pretend you are solving a problem you are just taking the description to the next level, no need to emphasize the minor differences. The emphasis is Metes and Bounds, not one over the other unless you can prove otherwise.
Paul in PA
I'm saying the metes closes, but the metes do not follow the bounds. The physical monuments (fence lines) are not where the metes described them. The differences aren't minor, 10.5' and 40'.
?ÿthe metes close within 0.005'
Which probably means somebody took measurements and did an office adjustment to make them close. It can't be relied on to give any indication of the measurement accuracy.
@mightymoe
I was going to reply that the term "along" (whatever: fence, right-of-way, etc.) means near, and gives you a little wiggle room.?ÿ The term "with" would be with the various jogs of the fence.?ÿ But when you qualified it with 10.5' and 40' from the fence, well then, that is "Just a bit Outside" (thanks Bob Uecker).
I was expecting it to be a bit different, I figured I could do the survey and ROS and show R vs M and keep the existing description.........didn't work out that way.?ÿ
If the fence on the ground is the one in the deed it is the monument. The math is all but irrelevant, and only comes into play when the evidence of the fence is gone. The fence?ÿ cannot be rejected because it doesn't meet some arbitrary limit with no foundation in law. The description is clear and unambiguous and the undisturbed original monument is there. Done.
Is the description you are working from the original lot split from the parent parcel? ?ÿIf not, I??d recommend researching all of the descriptions back to it??s origin to help build your understanding. ?ÿDo you know if the current fence is what the description calls for? ?ÿIt may have been replaced or realigned. If it is the intended fence line then the addition metes may be warranted. ?ÿ ?ÿI would set reference monuments (iron pins/pipes with caps) for the fence post corners to meet jurisdictional requirements. ?ÿMake sure the reference monuments are called for in the description and the plat to prevent confusion for future surveyors.
Question.?ÿ Are the original Grantor and Grantee still alive??ÿ If so why not write a Corrective Deed and have the Grantor sign it??ÿ I have seen multiple Corrective Deeds recorded because a line was omitted, wrong Land Lot, etc.
Andy
excellent idea.
out here I don't ever remember seeing a "corrective deed" document but I have seen elaborate "quit claim" deeds that accomplished the task.
There IS a latent issue that will probably raise it's ugly head in the future, it's Our job to point it out and suggest ways to correct it.
The original grantor and grantee cannot record a correction deed (of any use)?ÿ if the property has changed hands. They have no interest. The lone exception is if the original grantor still owns adjoining property and the original deed expreasly reserved the slivers between the math and fence.
If you are writing a new description it's cleaner to have the current owners execute an agreement conforming to your state law recognizing it. Recording a survey with a complete narrative is advisable.
The original grantor and grantee cannot record a correction deed (of any use)?ÿ if the property has changed hands. They have no interest. The lone exception is if the original grantor still owns adjoining property and the original deed expreasly reserved the slivers between the math and fence.
If you are writing a new description it's cleaner to have the current owners execute an agreement conforming to your state law recognizing it. Recording a survey with a complete narrative is advisable.
