This one I was working on today is a bit of a record in my experience. In 1921 a tract reported to contain 2997 acres was partitioned between two brothers. One of the tracts set apart by the partition was described by metes and bounds said to contain 1514 acres of land. One boundary of the tract was a winding watercourse with rocky banks that hasn't moved much in the last century. The meanders along that side of the tract were not given by course and distance, just "thence downstream with the meanders" or something very much like that.
Fast forward to 2013 and the 1514-acre tract is found to actually contain 1246.1 acres, a shortage of nearly 270 acres. I assume that there will be surveyors who don't want to compromise the integrity of the record by conveying the tract using other than the 1921 metes and bounds description. Most likely one of the parties to such a sale might be in favor of pretending that about 270 acres didn't just fly off to Kansas, but the other would be unhappy to eventually discover otherwise.
Next week I will go verify what a Town Surveyor set two years ago. While setting a bound 6' off the neighbor's deck, he explained to the neighbor that they could never measure it right back in the day.
His disrespect is disturbing, especially since he was retracing a line established by his father.
We should all respect the previous surveyors but we should understand their abilities were limited by the equipment. Unfortunately, we have too many of the younger generation who are too dependent on the equipment and don't understand what the machines are doing.
> We should all respect the previous surveyors but we should understand their abilities were limited by the equipment.
In this case, as far as I can tell this was a case of a surveyor sitting in the office in 1921 working from the records of prior surveys between 1888 and 1904 by one of his predecessors as County Surveyor. Naturally, the brothers didn't want to pay for resurveying the nearly 3,000 acres and running the division line, so Plan B was to try to figure it out on the drafting table where about 270 acres got lost in the process.
Nonetheless, presumably those details don't matter to the folks who want to maintain the record at all costs.
>
> Nonetheless, presumably those details don't matter to the folks who want to maintain the record at all costs.
:good: :good:
Partition In 1921 And The 2 Brothers Are Still Alive ?
I may be reading it wrong as to the division line.
That stream is a natural monument, and if was agreed to it is the division line.
Dividing something into two equal parts does not always result in equal acreage. The actual land value and improvements can effect such a split.
If the two brothers are now deceased, the assumption must be that they accepted the two parts as equal value. Equal access to the watercourse may be the most critical.
Paul in PA
"In 1921 a tract reported to contain 2997 acres was partitioned between two brothers. One of the tracts set apart by the partition was described by metes and bounds said to contain 1514 acres of land"
I'm a little to see the acres of the whole parcel in 2013 by description.
It could have been a chimney survey.
> This one I was working on today is a bit of a record in my experience. In 1921 a tract reported to contain 2997 acres was partitioned between two brothers. One of the tracts set apart by the partition was described by metes and bounds said to contain 1514 acres of land. One boundary of the tract was a winding watercourse with rocky banks that hasn't moved much in the last century. The meanders along that side of the tract were not given by course and distance, just "thence downstream with the meanders" or something very much like that.
>
> Fast forward to 2013 and the 1514-acre tract is found to actually contain 1246.1 acres, a shortage of nearly 270 acres. I assume that there will be surveyors who don't want to compromise the integrity of the record by conveying the tract using other than the 1921 metes and bounds description. Most likely one of the parties to such a sale might be in favor of pretending that about 270 acres didn't just fly off to Kansas, but the other would be unhappy to eventually discover otherwise.
It would depend on the "intent" of the 1921 deed. Was the "intent" to convey 1514 acres or was it meant to convey toa certain line? If this can be proven, then I would say your job is almost done. The other question is did the other tract increase by 270 acres or is it just not there? If none of these things are evident, I guess I would follow my grandfather's advice and "Make a decision and stand behind it, go with your gut" as he would say. But I would also be pretty sure that the bearings would be rounded to the nearest minute, making it retraceable.
Partition In 1921 And The 2 Brothers Are Still Alive ?
> I may be reading it wrong as to the division line.
> That stream is a natural monument, and if was agreed to it is the division line.
No, the watercourse is one of the boundaries of the original 2997 acre tract, not the partition line.
The partition line is quite straight forward. It runs from a known corner on a stated bearing to intersect the watercourse. There isn't much doubt as to its location as described in the instrument of partition and there is no occupation whatsoever that would place the line anywhere else.
The reason I mentioned the watercourse is that the irregular water boundary of the 2997 acre tract probably accounts for the acreage mistake. The metes and bounds description doesn't indicate that its meanders were surveyed prior to either the original conveyance of the 2997 acres or the 1921 partition. So, most likely it was drawn up from some other wildly inaccurate source.
> I'm a little to see the acres of the whole parcel in 2013 by description.
Yes, that will be interesting to discover.
> It would depend on the "intent" of the 1921 deed. Was the "intent" to convey 1514 acres or was it meant to convey toa certain line?
As you probably know, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the deed itself. The fact that the deed describes the tract set apart by metes and bounds is that statement of intention and in Texas is to be given effect using the ordinary priority of conflicting elements.
> > It would depend on the "intent" of the 1921 deed. Was the "intent" to convey 1514 acres or was it meant to convey toa certain line?
>
> As you probably know, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the deed itself. The fact that the deed describes the tract set apart by metes and bounds is that statement of intention and in Texas is to be given effect using the ordinary priority of conflicting elements.
I may not have explained myself clear enough. The question I was asking is was the property conveyed as the "western 1514 acres bounded by the following" or was it conveyed as the property bounded by ... containing 1514 acres? From what I understand, the first scenario would be about the only scenario I know of where acreage would hold over metes and bounds.
> I may not have explained myself clear enough. The question I was asking is was the property conveyed as the "western 1514 acres bounded by the following" or was it conveyed as the property bounded by ... containing 1514 acres?
Neither. It was described by metes and bounds, containing 1514 acres of land "more or less".
Doesn't the fact that a surveyor (you) was able to locate of the parcel prove that the description is not defective? Since the bound is the stream and it hasn't moved in a hundred years is their some reason to "worry" that it's going to jump out of its banks and form a new channel and thus the need for a new and improved legal description?
I suppose the real problem is you can't file the survey in a public record other than the title documents where the differences in the record (paper words) and actual (physical shape of the land form) would be clearly depicted. So you need to write a new legal every time a parcel is surveyed. So it is proper to hold original monuments but not original descriptions that in fact are not defective.
Did anyone actually lose the acreage? Seems to me the land form didn't change a bit. The only thing changing is the perception of how much is owned and maybe the property taxes can be reduced.
Original surveys are not defective if they can be retraced, so why would one ever file a retracement map (let alone have a law requiring it)?
That's an interesting view and there are many states that don't require filing of survey maps.
In my state we are required to file surveys. I didn't have anything to do with the law being passed. I can say that it is a most valuable resource to surveyors in trying to sort it all out.
In my state a surveyor can't record a new legal description in the title records. The landowners can however record stuff provided by a surveyor so plenty of new and improved descriptions get into the title records. My experience is they cause more confusion than anything else but some are spot on. Many problems are resolved by going back to the originals and applying the law forward from there.
A landowner could record a deed with a metes and bounds going around 10 acres and say it contained 1000 acres more or less. Even without the more or less the parcel would only contain the acreage within the bounds. It might be deceptive or even fraud but still only the actual physical area would be conveyed. The title companies around here strip every reference to acreage from the docs they record.
> Original surveys are not defective if they can be retraced, so why would one ever file a retracement map (let alone have a law requiring it)?
I assume that you're making that point tongue in cheek, Duane. Just because a description can be retraced today, doesn't mean that it can be five years from now after enough boundary monuments have been destroyed and there is no record from which to re-establish them other than the faulty one.
On a different point, why on Earth would a landowner want to continue to pay taxes on 270 acres of non-existent land?
In Texas, it's a very common practice to simply convey land using modernized descriptions that correct the errors in the original descriptions. The land is the same, the boundaries are just described in a way that gives a more accurate picture of the actual shape and location of the tract. That same modernized description both perpetuates the original monuments found in place from which the boundary was located and describes the new monuments that replaced those that were found to be missing. It's just basic boundary maintenance.
Here in Vermont, no astute attorney handling a land transaction will allow their client to convey a parcel with an altered description, based on a current survey or not (barring subdivision or other record change, of course). The perception being that if the property is to be conveyed via warranty deed and the surveyor somehow screwed the pooch, that some liability may extend to the Grantor through the warranty. "All and the same lands and premises" wins the day. That perception may or may not be true, but if the description remains unaltered, the Grantor is much less likely to be involved in future litigation arising from a new, but incorrect description.
The owner can still place the survey on record with the Clerk and bring it to the attention of the Tax Assessor who will adjust the assessment map and assessment accordingly. Our tax assessors seem to understand the distinction between the historical record and a modern survey. That why there assessor and we're surveyors. Do the officials not understand this in Texas?
Assumption correct.
For the detractors I would say that even if you intend to convey something that it turns out you don't own; you haven't conveyed it. And the flip side of that; one is presumed to convey the parcel they own unless the contrary can be shown (usually by very explicit language of exclusion).
There are no strips or gores in the normal course of things. Sure, modernized descriptions can screw things up when not based on a survey or when based on an erroneous survey. Nothing new there. But not sure what the surveyor is for if not to attempt to resolve ambiguities.
I mean, why go to all the trouble if a new description can't be used in the next transaction? Just measure it out from scratch again with a knotted rope and compass, sling some flags around the angle points, sketch it on a knapkin, use the same description, and move on.
"In Texas, it's a very common practice to simply convey land using modernized descriptions that correct the errors in the original descriptions. "
Wow - I can only imagine what nightmares that causes!! It would generate a lot of survey work though...