Au contraire, mon ami
[sarcasm]rounding to the nearest 5 feet and divisible by 5 are 2 different things...[/sarcasm]. and quit calling me "mommy"....o.O
Au contraire, mon ami
Remember who wrote the description. That Attorney was provided with some owner obtained distances, they provided no bearings or compass directions. Like all Attorneys that have not reached the point in their careers to know better, this attorney probably thought that the Section lines were square and cardinal. Sometimes the surveyor needs to consider the beliefs and experience of the person that wrote the description in the first place, that can be an indicator of intent. That intent was to use parallel lines, except for the one diagonal line. With the added photo's, the intent is clear, just not marked on the ground.
jud
> How would you survey this tract? It has never been surveyed on the ground. No monuments. It is a paper legal description written up by an attorney.
>
> Few would disagree that the EAST direction would be on the line between the NW Corner and the N 1/4 Corner and the NORTH call would be on the line between the NW Corner and the W 1/4 Corner.
>
> Where would you place the east line of this tract where the SOUTH call is made and where would you place the the south line of this tract where the WEST call is made?
>
> Most surveyors in this area, myself included, would place the east line parallel with the west section line and the south line parallel with the north section line. This is a case where "NORTH" means very little, but only a general direction.
>
> 
First, why don't they just say beginning at the NWC of the section? What is the purpose of adding that it's also the NWC of the NW 1/4???
At any rate, you begin at the Northwest corner, go East, with the Section line, go South, parallel with the West line of the Section 309'. Then you go back to the NWC of the section, go South, with the section line, 444 feet, then offset that puppy 420 feet to the East. Then go back to the 309' point and draw a 187' circle and see if you can make that call work. If not, that's the one that get's the flub in it. If it had said SW instead of Southwesterly, I might change my mind, but that's how I'd describe it. The Southeast corner HAS TO BE 420' East of the West line of the section. Assuming it's a senior tract, then all of the other distances will get their call and that 187 is just whatever it happens to be.
What were the conditions when the description was written?
What was he attempting to describe?
Was he attempting to describe a portion of land that was being occupied or used separately from the rest of the parent parcel? What were the parameters used to determine the dimensions?
Before you attempt a mathematical solution by arbitrarily applying what might be proper if you can find no further information, you need to find the answers to questions about what was guiding the attorney as he wrote the description.
If he was attempting to follow lines of occupation existing at that time, then you need to do your best to locate those lines.
If he scaled some offsets from existing features and attempted to create some minimal clearance to something like a house, barn or septic field, and you can reliably detwermine what those parameters were, try to recreate them. This may lead to having to advise the client to reform the deed to reflect what they really wanted, but you will be identifying what they actually intended in the first place.
If he scaled some greater approximate distances from features and used a $50 cogo program to come up with a figure containing a certain amount of area, and there are no obvious parameters of lines of occupation or minimal clearances from nearby features, then go to the mathematical solution by applying general interpretive rules.
Unless the courts in your jurisdiction have clearly identified a different general rule, I would hold East along the N section line, South parallel to the W section line, define the SW'ly end of the 187' line by backing it in the last 2 courses: 444' South along the W section line and 420' East, perpendicular to the W section line since the point is more strongly referenced to the W section line.
Again, I wouldn't apply that until after I've exhausted investigation into what the attorney's controlling parameters might have been.
This would be a very good question for the PLS exam.