Specifically Approximately?

It could be that language was added because of an oral misunderstanding. 113 and 130 (depending on your accent) sound the same. If you found 113 in the field then that will exclude a scriveners error.

Good point- I am just getting going on this one-it doesn't help that the deed does not close- there is a missing call,or two, in the chain of title..

Sorry guys - I wasn't paying attention to where I was posting this - i dont think this is General Non- Surveying!

Oh Yeah...what the heck are you doing?????

This is the wrong dang category....geeezzzz.;-)

Oh Yeah...what the heck are you doing?????

i know craig - beat you to it:-)

Oh Yeah...what the heck are you doing?????

ok- i am not that smart- thanks to whoever changed category!

Sounds to me like there was a survey involved in there someplace, maybe not done under a license but owners rights to measure their fences. Area might have been computed from occupation by those owners who thought it was 130 acres instead of the measured 113 acres, so they covered their butts and covered it hoping not to give up something that later may be shown as theirs. Does sound like more research, that research may be more valuable by kicking the family's brains along with the adjoiners.
jud

"specifically approximately"

To some that is clearly a vague term, to others, a vaguely clear term.

Now we must move this to humor.

This won't be the first time someone mistakes General Non-Surveying with General Surveying, the close (but non-existent) relative of Strictly Surveying

Does it make more sense if you insert a comma after "specifically"?

I agree jud- no doubt the ranchers out there no what took place..

know what took place -

Intent is what we seek, at least that is what I thought we were looking for, Two words alone seldom provide that, they can sometimes clear up the meanings from other writings in a document but it is rare for two words to show intent, they are good for creating confusion or avoiding making an accountable statement. To avoid an accountable statement is what I think was done here. Need to be confident that someone else will not come along and prove that you used a non-existent intent. I would consider such a Deed Description as placing a Cloud on the title which needs clearing up before any surveying is completed and stamped.
jud

I also agree with Jud. The older survey showed 113.7 acres and the original deed (probably not based on a survey) called for 130. The owners didn't want to drop any claim that they may have to the extra acreage just in case that 113.7 acre survey was wrong. I have seen that more than a few times.

I did one last week that the "original" deed called for 4 acres 'more or less' to be exempted from the NW corner of the land lot in 1927. My client was buying this property from the owner now whose deed calls for an "approximately" 360' by 360' corner of the NW corner of the land lot that states it has 3.4 acres, 'more or less'.
The math doesn't work. NO surveying EVER done there. (lawyers can do the easy stuff, and they do it A LOT around here). But, my client got a 360' by 360' plot of land. Period.

We're not the 'survey police'. We're mappers. What is there is what is there. We give opinions based on what we find by what methods we use. We live or die by them.
Just my 0.04's worth.

Take care,
Ed

Well, I get the humor in "specifically approximately", but call me the odd-man-out. I think it is used properly in context of the whole statement.

Ed, when I do a survey, unless it is within a Platted Subdivision or Partition Plat, I check the first deed description for the tract of interest for any changes of intent caused by different writings down through the years. If there are changes in the writings the questions of occupation are usually answered within the first description about why the occupation does not match the new descriptions very well. Usually the occupation matches the original description and that original deed description is what I use to survey the tract with. In the Narrative I explain who, what and, when and by whom, the deed description was changed. With no legitimate reason for the change, the original is the document to use when it is the better fit. Your original 4 acre description, without well defined conflicting occupation lines, would probably have gotten 4 acres from me, with all equal length and parallel sides. It then would be explained in the narrative on the survey drawing. The above is not always the proper thing to do with the exception of checking the chain of title for unintended or unjustified changes in the description. It depends needs to be part of all of this.
jud

Jud,....

> Ed, when I do a survey, unless it is within a Platted Subdivision or Partition Plat, I check the first deed description for the tract of interest for any changes of intent caused by different writings down through the years. If there are changes in the writings the questions of occupation are usually answered within the first description about why the occupation does not match the new descriptions very well. Usually the occupation matches the original description and that original deed description is what I use to survey the tract with...

You don't know how much I wished that such a scenario had held true in this case. I understand completely what you're saying. I thought long and hard about doing what you described. But, there was NO evidence of occupation there. It was just a plot of land there that had been deeded and conveyed in two conflicting ways. Between the two, one made sense, the original, and the other was 'antigargled'. But, the second one had been in effect for over twenty years and the owner had never even tried to claim to any of it's boundaries since, I guess, they only existed on paper anyway. I had to survey over 1500' of tie lines just to confirm that the one corner that existed, which was the land lot corner, was 'good'. And believe me, my client paid dearly for this effort. He actually understood the reasoning behind what I did, as well as the owner did. In the end it was the owner couldn't convey more land than HIS deed called for. Even if the distances were called out as 'approximately', there were distances and cardinal directions called out.

I have agonized so many times throughout my career over such seemingly 'small' matters. But, it always boils down to that this is why they call it a "practice". IMOHO, we get paid to render opinions on matters that the layman can sometimes just not grasp at all. And too often, anymore, they don't.

Thanks for commenting on this.

Take care,
Ed

When a Geophysicist was asked this question his answer was simple:

What do you want it to be?

Hey Joe,

Sounds like every other job to me. lol 😛 :-@

Randy