...is adding a legible, scan-able co-ord list at the end of a legal (land) description.
I don't do it yet, but I'm no longer in charge. 🙁 (poor excuse)
But if you've ever had a giant title comm't to go thru, for a small parcel that has the misfortune of being in a shopping center, with millions of easements and millions of courses (If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, don't exaggerate!) would that ever be handy, even when the coords are assumed?!!
In Florida, surveyors used to be required to do a sketch for each description, but since lawyers, grandpa, et al, were not required to do so, they got rid of that requirement.
In this digital age, there ought to be a better way than typing in a hundred courses, and fighting for an hour trying to get it to close. (fat fingers cost money).
Kudos to you Kent, and you other who do it.
Wrong category, though. :>
> ...is adding a legible, scan-able co-ord list at the end of a legal (land) description.
Actually, I like to add the OCR scannable list in the middle of the metes and bounds description so that it won't get lost by some paralegal when the instrument it's an exhibit to is put together.
Here's an example (along with the accompanying diagrams) of what in an ideal world would have been simple to describe, but which, because of some problematic prior surveys, was not.
Steve,
It is not mandated by law or statue but it is common practice to attach a labeled exhibit to most land descriptions here in Nevada "(attached hereto and made a part of hereof)". I really enjoy and advocate the benefit of doing so. I have serious reservations concerning providing coordinates
CV
CV,
I think a sufficient note could be composed stating that they are to facilitate the plotting and illustration of the deed courses, and do not control the actual boundary, i.e. boundary law still applies.
Rock Mound Photos
By the way, here are photos of Corner No. 255, the Point of Commencing,
Rod and Cap No. 255 in the rebuilt Rock Mound
Detail of Rod and Cap No. 255
The above were taken after the original corner was restored, using the scattered remains of what was most likely the original mound shown in this photo taken before restoration:
Vicinity of Corner No. 255 before Restoration
Here's a photo of the Rock Mound with Nail No. 236 a couple of thousand feet away on the recognized survey line.
A 60d Nail No. 236 marked the station in the old Rock Mound.
Good morning Steve,
I have to ask; why provide something you have to turn around and disclaim? I personally feel land descriptions should be void of unnecessary content.
CV
> I have to ask; why provide something you have to turn around and disclaim? I personally feel land descriptions should be void of unnecessary content.
I don't frankly understand Steve's worry about coordinates. With modern technology it is possible to get accurate coordinates which, particularly when they refer to a geodetic datum, can be exceptionally useful. For example, by publishing the grid coordinates of the rock mounds described in the link I provided, a surveyor who wants to just drop in to tie the mound can navigate right to it. In the meantime, he or she can use my +/-5mm estimate of its position to make some preliminary calculations to search for other corners tied to it.
The risk of someone using just the coordinates of one point to restore it seems no worse than using just one course and distance from one monument to do so. No competent surveyor would do it if any other option existed.
> > I have to ask; why provide something you have to turn around and disclaim? I personally feel land descriptions should be void of unnecessary content.
>
> I don't frankly understand Steve's worry about coordinates. With modern technology it is possible to get accurate coordinates which, particularly when they refer to a geodetic datum, can be exceptionally useful. For example, by publishing the grid coordinates of the rock mounds described in the link I provided, a surveyor who wants to just drop in to tie the mound can navigate right to it. In the meantime, he or she can use my +/-5mm estimate of its position to make some preliminary calculations to search for other corners tied to it.
>
> The risk of someone using just the coordinates of one point to restore it seems no worse than using just one course and distance from one monument to do so. No competent surveyor would do it if any other option existed.
I agree completely. A disclaimer is not necessary when using coordinates. They are a legitimate part of the description. Coordinates provide redundancy. I have read posts and opinons that you should only have just enough information to plot the boundary and no redundancy. I don't understand that philosophy. If there is a mistake in the description, a redundant piece of data might clarify that mistake. Say, for instance, a bearing is written as "NE" instead of "SE". What holds? In my opinion discovery of the blunder and finding closure when it is corrected would hold; especially if you found monuments at the corrected bearing. coordinates would help discover such an error. The reverse is true as well. If there was some kind of typo in one coordinate pair, the metes and bounds would confirm that typo.
People are ready to dislaim coordinates because of their list of seniority of calls in a description. I think you need that list to use only if you can't find an apparent blunder or discover the mistake. Having "coordinates" at the bottom of the list is relatively meaningless in that you can usually find the blundered error if you study the description and the ground evidence thoroughly.
Coordinates have been at the bottom of the list because in the past they were not easy/likely to make as accurate in an absolute sense, and relative local position was better expressed as distances and bearings.
That is changing with GPS and proper metadata. Do you think they will climb up the legal list in the future?
Bill93, I don't know about you, but I usually find the a/the error in the description and seldom apply "the list". If I find a blunder in a bearing (or distance, for instance), and the coordinate appears to match all of the rest of the the description as a whole, I will use the coordinate and all the rest of the evidence over the blundered bearing.
I can't imagine a circumstance where I would result to use of the infamous list of seniority of calls. I am sure it (that circumstance) exists, but it I have seldom to never resulted to the reference to it.
Wrong category, though. :>
Looks great except for the north arrow. :-O 😉
> If there is a mistake in the description, a redundant piece of data might clarify that mistake. Say, for instance, a bearing is written as "NE" instead of "SE".
The other thing to point out is that coordinate data is easy to check for consistency with the metes and bounds description in the example I provided simply by inversing between a point and another point to which the description gives a tie by bearing and distance.
Personally I think coordinates have already taken on a larger role in retracement. I have set several points back on coordinates alone that I had previously shot where road construction or other things have destroyed all accessories and the monument itself.
Will this rise to the point that I would trust others coordinates? That is the real question.
If I was following Kent then I'd say yes, but are we there with all surveyors who understand datums, follow acceptable procedures and document the metadata. That is another question.
I think we will see some landmark cases in the coming years that will put coordinates above a proportion but not above original evidence. So they will be weighted correctly by most courts I think.
Agreed...exactly; an example of what I was talking about in reference to redundant data.
> > > I have to ask; why provide something you have to turn around and disclaim? I personally feel land descriptions should be void of unnecessary content.
> >
> > I don't frankly understand Steve's worry about coordinates. With modern technology it is possible to get accurate coordinates which, particularly when they refer to a geodetic datum, can be exceptionally useful. For example, by publishing the grid coordinates of the rock mounds described in the link I provided, a surveyor who wants to just drop in to tie the mound can navigate right to it. In the meantime, he or she can use my +/-5mm estimate of its position to make some preliminary calculations to search for other corners tied to it.
> >
> > The risk of someone using just the coordinates of one point to restore it seems no worse than using just one course and distance from one monument to do so. No competent surveyor would do it if any other option existed.
>
> I agree completely. A disclaimer is not necessary when using coordinates. They are a legitimate part of the description. Coordinates provide redundancy. I have read posts and opinons that you should only have just enough information to plot the boundary and no redundancy. I don't understand that philosophy. If there is a mistake in the description, a redundant piece of data might clarify that mistake. Say, for instance, a bearing is written as "NE" instead of "SE". What holds? In my opinion discovery of the blunder and finding closure when it is corrected would hold; especially if you found monuments at the corrected bearing. coordinates would help discover such an error. The reverse is true as well. If there was some kind of typo in one coordinate pair, the metes and bounds would confirm that typo.
>
> People are ready to dislaim coordinates because of their list of seniority of calls in a description. I think you need that list to use only if you can't find an apparent blunder or discover the mistake. Having "coordinates" at the bottom of the list is relatively meaningless in that you can usually find the blundered error if you study the description and the ground evidence thoroughly.
Depends on your state's statutes and what coordinates you would be displaying (please don't say assumed 10,000 / 10,000 datum or whatever):
54.236 Presentation of coordinates for recording; contents of recording document.
Sec. 6. "Coordinates based on either Michigan coordinate system described in this act, purporting to define the position of a point or a land boundary corner, shall not be presented to be recorded unless the recording document contains an estimate, expressed as a standard deviation, of the positional tolerance of the coordinates being recorded. The recording document shall also contain a description of the nearest first or second order horizontal geodetic control monument from which the coordinates being recorded were determined and the method of survey for that determination. If the position of the described first or second order geodetic control monument is not published by the NOAA/NGS, the recording document shall contain a certificate signed by a land surveyor licensed under article 20 of the occupational code, Act No. 299 of the Public Acts of 1980, being sections 339.2001 to 339.2014 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, which certificate states that the described control monument and its coordinates have been established and determined in conformance with the specifications given in section 5 or 5a."
Additionally,
54.238 Describing location of survey station or land boundary corner; conflicting
descriptions.
Sec. 8. "(1) For the purpose of describing the location of a survey station or land boundary corner in the state of Michigan, it shall be considered a complete, legal, and satisfactory description of that location to give the position of the survey station or land boundary corner by the Michigan coordinate system of 1927 or the
Michigan coordinate system of 1983.
(2) If the Michigan coordinate system of 1927 or the Michigan coordinate system of 1983 is used to describe a tract of land which in the same document is also described by reference to a subdivision, line, or corner of the United States public land surveys, or to a subdivision plat duly recorded in accordance with the
subdivision control act of 1967, Act No. 288 of the Public Acts of 1967, being sections 560.101 to 560.293 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, the description by coordinates shall be construed as supplemental to the basic description of the subdivision, line, or corner contained in the official plats and field notes filed of record, and in the event of a conflict, the description by reference to the subdivision, line, or corner of the United States public land surveys, or to the recorded subdivision plat, shall prevail over the description by coordinates."
> Personally I think coordinates have already taken on a larger role in retracement. I have set several points back on coordinates alone that I had previously shot where road construction or other things have destroyed all accessories and the monument itself.
>
> Will this rise to the point that I would trust others coordinates? That is the real question.
>
> If I was following Kent then I'd say yes, but are we there with all surveyors who understand datums, follow acceptable procedures and document the metadata. That is another question.
>
> I think we will see some landmark cases in the coming years that will put coordinates above a proportion but not above original evidence. So they will be weighted correctly by most courts I think.
Nicely stated Deral, I couldn't agree more.
I just received the Sept Lucas letter today and I noticed that he signs his email with
"best regards,"
hmmm, do you think???
Coordinates
Coordinates are redundant data, but today they are so easy to include in a description with modern equipment. But if I were entering course data for a typical property with 4 -8 courses, would I scan in a coordinate list? Probably not. If the description closed, would I compare my calculated coordinates with those provided in the description? Again, probably not.
I might consider it in a case like Kent's with so many courses, provided the copy of the metes & bounds description was clear, and not likely to produce a "B" where there should be an "8", or a "5" read as a "3". (That's been a big problem with trying to scan in old typed-in data.) Since it doesn't actually take me very long to enter in course data, I just prefer to do it that way.
I think the coordinate list is a good idea, but it wouldn't fly around here with the legal community.
Hold on a minute there. Not that I disagree with coordinates, but I seem to remember that Kent also shows Grid bearings and SURFACE distances. While this in and of itself isn't wrong, you've literally got TWO sets of data that won't jive.
Now, before I get lambasted, I get the difference. It won't mess with me, but, what about those folks who haven't run from a TRI station since 27 was the only datum or used SPC in that long? What about the cad tech who doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground? Which do I hold? Seems like a silly question, and an easy one, but one that some folks won't ask.
On my boundary tracts, this isn't even an issue. I work near zone lines on tracts 100 acres or less. Kent on the other hand isn't happy unless it's 10000 West Texas Sections who knows where to the zone lines. Scale factors could get kinda dicey.
Anyway, you can put all of the disclaimers you want on it and explain it until hell freezes over, but that doesn't mean that some retard won't still mess it up and you have to spend money to prove you're right.
For this reason, and I've had discussions with Kent and my buddy Shawn Billings and several other surveyors that tend to disagree with me, but if my bearings are in grid, so are my distances. I have statements like this on the plat and field notes.
Bearings are based on the Texas Coordinate System of 1983, Texas Central Zone per GPS observations. All coordinates are U. S. Survey Feet, NAD83 (CORS96) Epoch 2002.0 per static GPS data gathered on someday and processed through OPUS via the NGS website. All distances are GRID. To get surface distances, divide the distance shown/recited by whatever the CSF is. To get geodetic bearings, rotate the bearings shown/recited by whatever the gamma/convergence angle is.
I'm sure someone is ready to slam me over this, but it makes the coordinates recited match what you would come up with if you calculated the deed.
Just my two cents worth on a deceased equine
