That depends upon the Texan you are talking with....
Some of us are still training Attorneys and Title Companies and Clients to converse with surveyors.
Jim,
What do you tell your clients when the boundary description does not match with what you find it the field? Do you tell them sorry I can not finish the Survey until a Judge makes a ruling?
Right about the linework. It seems like he overstated his experience drafting.
I think we all agree you want to show the existing field B/D along with plat or legal B/D. But writing a new description vs. what is recorded just seems so funky to me.
Interesting discussion! Thanks for all your feedback.
Describing the metes and bounds by field measurements is common practice in non PLS States. Moving field points and not connecting lines is wrong everywhere.
By chance is he placing symbols then trimming the lines to the edges of the symbols. ?ÿI have read on here of draftsmen who believe this improves the appearance of their drawing.
I don't believe that anyone is moving field points.
They are holding one found monument as a beginning point, defining the basis of bearings upon deed call along the first call and placing what is found into cad.
Linework will often fall in a close, yet different place than original calls.
0.02
Scott,
?ÿ
I provide them with a Record of Survey drawing (recorded in the local courthouse) showing them where their property corner monuments are located. The property lines are annotated with both the record and measured bearings and distances.
I drafted a few legal descriptions in Texas and I found the practice of writing legal descriptions to fit current conditions on the ground refreshing.?ÿ I could take the field notes out of a deed (aka legal description) and retrace the boundary with no other information.?ÿ Most of the legal descriptions were much longer than what I encounter practicing in California for the last 10 years.?ÿ The main difference, as has been discussed, is that there are few options in Texas for making your survey map a matter of public record.?ÿ As I recall the typical map research was performed by asking the neighbors if they ever had a survey and going to their house to view and request a copy of the map.?ÿ Again, I appreciate being able to take grant deed in hand and walk around the boundary and find all of the corners as described.
?ÿ
I also like it here in CA when I can download from the County clerk 5 or 6 copies of historic retracements of the lines in question and predict what I am going to find on the ground before I go out.
?ÿ
Now working in CA what we have here is a tendency to not change anything in the LD without some sort of jurisdictional approval.?ÿ What you sometimes get is a worthlessly ambiguous or conflicting legal description (e.g. thence in a northerly direction 100' more or less to a point, thence easterly along the creekd 150' more or less to a point, etc.) which often doesn't help anyone and costs a fortune to retrace and especially in the areas where periods of not filing maps became trendy?ÿ for a while there are no records of many previously established corners.?ÿ The result is you have to retrace the entire neighborhood and file a survey map every time you stake out a fenceline, even if you are fortunate enough to pull an old map out of someone's attic to prove up your found corner pipes.
?ÿ
I suppose both methods have their advantages, the Texas style is efficient for the consumer but there is not much oversight.?ÿ I find the CA (recording state) method to be a better solution as far as a survey product goes but the costs for research, estimating, contracting, mapping and filing are outrageous in a heavily regulated environment.?ÿ I can't say either one is generally better or worse, they are different and I submit that just beacuse we don't understand something doesn't necessarily make it wrong
I'm still trying to process "moving the field collected points...."
That is not what is being done.
We do not move anything in the field.
We take a paper description and make the locations on the ground and define them as to where they actually are according to our current measurements in relation to another recorded monument and update all the legal references to match today's owners and show any existing easements that affect the property today.
The way I understand it is they write the new legal description which functions as a sort of narrative record of the survey. Then they give that to the client so that it can get recorded at the next transfer assuming it doesn't get lost or forgotten or the title company insists on using the old description.
there is no intention in my post to opine on the correctness of this procedure.
I came across a case from North Carolina. It was a complicated case from the 1890s involving two conflicting metes and bounds descriptions. The descriptions cited the original surveys.
So I go noodling around the Internet looking for the property and by some miracle I found it (they don't have STR Meridian). The modern description just said begin at an iron pipe in Such-and-such Road, thence bearing and distance to an iron pipe etc. No mention of the original surveys at all, I found that odd.
We always preserve the record ties to the land net whatever that may be (STR, Rancho, S&O Survey, etc.)
Depends on what type of survey is being prepared. TSPS manual of practice (similar to ALTA requirements) requires writing a new metes and bounds description when any significant difference appears between the recorded description and the new survey. So if client calls me up and orders Category 1A title survey, and my measurements or monuments found are significantly different than the record description, I'm contractually bound to prepare a new metes and bounds description.?ÿ
Can't speak of why his linework didn't close as that sounds like poor drafting. Can't speak to why he would move points.
Title issues in Texas that might be caused by new descriptions are avoided by using careful wording, particularly in the preamble. For example, the preamble should say something like "being the same land described in [original/previous deed]". Calls along boundary lines should say something like "with the [North/South/East/West] line of the [original/previous] tract..." Any other information becomes secondary and preserves the title of the original tract, while modernizing the calls for directions, distances, and even monuments.?ÿ
Many people do not understand the bounds part of a property description.
Shortcuts by not giving the deed reference or accepting the last recorded deed as the proper reference and not pulling that deed and reading the description that is in the deed being referenced is one of the greatest mistakes to make.
Most of today's deeds do not contain an actual metes and bounds description and only make reference to the prior recording.
Research can take going to the original deed from the parent tract to actually find metes and bounds description for proper reference and will make it necessary to include both references in the new description.
The mentioning of the present adjoining property owner is the other half of the purpose of writing a new property description and to researth those properties for any encumbrance that may join the property being surveyed.