The original Lot closes...
Thanks Bryan for the map check of the original lot. Lot 12-C was cut out of Lot 12-B and I have a copy of the 12-C deed and a new plat diagram that shows the cutout. But the old and new plats have the same mismatch between the southern boundary line and bearing and distance numbers.
Probably the strongest legal argument I have is the acreage at purchase for both lot 12-A and 12-B matches the plat numbers. If the lot line was kept as in the drawing I would be short and my southern neighbor would be long 0.6 acres.
Update: Thanks Bryan for plotting the entire lot and confirming the plat's numbers.
I PM'd you about a surveyor recommendation.
Thanks everyone for the very quick and very valuable information.
Rob
Bryan...
Yes, it looks like the southern boundary line was drawn incorrectly. The two lines do not match the bearings and distances. I'm really hoping the turn marker for the southern boundary is still there.
You are correct sir!!!
I ran the mapcheck, it closed, I did not even look at the picture!
Mr. Rob(s) graphic would indicate his option "9" would be correct.
Now you understand why I terminated my employment with this firm.
And for the record...12-A closes also
but yes, the plat is drawn incorrectly.
Select figure: Figure Name: LOT 12-A
Course: N 17-15-25 E Distance: 134.96
Course: S 86-08-41 E Distance: 224.31
Course: N 84-18-16 E Distance: 701.46
Course: S 04-40-15 W Distance: 59.19
Course: S 21-44-55 W Distance: 160.17
Course: S 44-04-35 W Distance: 270.87
Course: N 72-50-40 W Distance: 742.27
Perimeter: 2293.23
Area: 230315.63 5.29 acres
Mapcheck Closure - (Uses listed courses & COGO Units)
Error of Closure: 0.004 Course: S 23-10-28 W
Precision 1: 555690.92
The original Lot closes...
When there is a conflict, the controlling principle is to give effect to that which is most likely correct and disregard that which is most likely incorrect.
In this case the bearings and distances are most likely correct and the graphic depiction is incorrect.
Granted the lot corner monuments will hold over the bearings and distances.
It looks like your neighbor wanted the water feature...
all to himself.
He owns the 1.64 acre portion of 12-B and (at least) Lots 6 & 7 adjoining to the east.
It looks like your neighbor wanted the water feature...
I didn't realize he owned the adjoining lots. The County Clerk told me it looked like 12-C was landlocked. Maybe he'll want my lot too.
Map Drawn Wrong?
> It looks like the south line of 12B is drawn wrong? At least per your data.
Ah, how soon we forget. That plat was drawn in 1984 by a surveyor (Tommy Dodd, RIP) whose office was not known for performing very careful work. That map was almost certainly drawn by hand with perhaps an old-style drafting arm to plot bearings or perhaps only a parallel bar and adjustable triangle.
The calculations were, of course, made entirely separately from the map and the survey data was written on the plat by hand, most likely from paper tape from one of the programmable calculators such as the Monroe 1880 that were widely used by land surveyors at the time. So it would hardly be shocking that some graphical error in plotting up the boundaries on the plat went undetected.
It looks like your neighbor wanted the water feature...
You can't land lock someone without them having access, that's why I looked at the adjoining lots to the east. Plus GE did not show any kind of trail/drive to that area.
The original Lot closes...
One last question. In the Longview II plat above, is there something on it that ties it to the real world of lats and longs versus relative angle and distance?
Map Drawn Wrong?
Typically here the calc'd coordinates was plotted on a "k" sheet in pencil then traced onto Mylar by the draftsman.
Not on paper...
That would only come with GPS or celestial observations. That map was done at the birth of civilian GPS and the necessity of celestial observations was not there.
Map Drawn Wrong?
> Typically here the calc'd coordinates was plotted on a "k" sheet in pencil then traced onto Mylar by the draftsman.
In the case of this plat, I'd think what happened is that some new division lines were added to a plan with a Lot 12 on it to make Lots 12A and 12B. I'd be surprised if those additional lines, including the one in question, weren't plotted by bearing and distance using either a drafting arm or an adjustable triangle and parallel bar.
Not on paper...
> That would only come with GPS or celestial observations. That map was done at the birth of civilian GPS and the necessity of celestial observations was not there.
Probably the more accurate statement was that the responsible surveyor didn't spend any time at all thinking about how to improve the quality of his work. He was the same fellow who at a meeting of the local chapter of the former Texas Surveyors Association stated that he completely ignored the requirement to place concrete monuments on subdivision boundaries, but just inked them in on the plat, expecting to tell someone in the future that "the utility contractors must have taken them out". The emphasis was on speed and kicking it out the door to make some money on a lowball price as if nobody would ever know the difference.
There were firms in Austin who spent the twenty minutes in the field that it took to make a solar observations for azimuth and who actually built the concrete monuments.
The Only Math Error On The Plat Is...
The partial distance along the northwesterly line of Lot 12-B Remainder.
319.93' is the original distance of that Lot 12-B line, but with the 1.640 Acre, exception it should be listed at 194.93, with the 319.93 on the exterior of the line.
A lot of guys jumped to a lot of other [sarcasm][/sarcasm]conclusions without mentioning it.
Thanks to Bryan Newsome for reporting the missing bearing as N 17°15'25" E. Weighing the available information I would have accepted N 17°15'21" E.
From what I know of mapping it appears the original surveyor used a 5" or 10" instrument and reported bearings to the nearest 5" except for his closing lines.
With that in mind, I might have assumed the missing bearing to be N 17°15'20" E.
Paul in PA
