I’m trying to work out sort of a complex description where there are multiple "together with" and "except thereof" parts to a parcel (needs to be one contiguous parcel). In order to avoid the confusion of which parcel all the together with and except thereof apply I’m considering something such as follows:
DESCRIPTION
The Anchor Land described as follows:
(Description of aliquot part(s) of section)
TOGETHER WITH the Anchor Land described as follows:
(Metes and bounds of a portion of an aliquot part contiguous to Anchor Land)
EXCEPT a portion of the Anchor Land described as follows:
(Metes and bounds of a portion of the Anchor Land)
MORE TOGETHER WITH or EXCEPT clauses in any order as long as the Anchor Land is called out.
Will this work without being confusing?
Is there a better way (not including converting to all metes and bounds where no together with or excepting thereof clauses are needed)
For estate planning and other legal issues creating a description that contains several parts acquired over time, was something desirable. Along came planning and their rules, which makes combining tracts acquired separately and over time into one contiguously described unit of land not such a good move, because it makes it very difficult, requires what is basically permission and a permit from planning, to re-separate those separately acquired units back out of the whole. I would think carefully about what the future may do to your client if those separate and distinct units are combined into one by description and or tax number. I recommend to those who are thinking about re-writing descriptions then re-recording to combine separate units not to do so, by keeping them separate, they protect more of their options on managing what they own without a bunch of control freaks in the name of planning dictating what they can do. So far if the deeds have been combined on one document but each unit is described and labeled as a separate unit, such as tract 1, etc., planning can only control that unit when partitioning or other land use issue is raised. They want all and much effort goes into acquiring more power over the landowners, so make it difficult for them to take more ownership right than they have.
jud
I hear and understand. I've recommended many times that clients do not consolidate multiple lots of record into one parcel for the very reasons you have described.
That is not the case I'm working on. What I have is a boundary adjustment going on. I have two parcels to begin (with exceptions and together with) with which needs to remain two parcels after I'm done (another set of together with and exceptions to adjust the boundary) to avoid violating the subdivision ordinance and cancelling building permit eligibility. My county is full of parcels with multiple aliquot parts (and other parts thereof) considered as on parcel for building purposes. I'm just trying to make the description non confusing as possible.
Is there a way in your state to just file a record of survey of everything, and then just have your legal description cite that R/S. Somewhat like a subdivision.
"That part of Section....bla bla, more particularly described as Parcel A as depicted on Record of Survey recorded on Page....bla bla". You can show all those exceptions and together withs on your survey as seperate entities.
They don't do that in MI, but AZ does and it is a dream come true. Those lengthly M & B descriptions are a major PIA, always have been and always will be. Case in point with your project. The bonus is it will keep lay people from messing up the chain of title because it will always refer back to your survey.
good luck
> I’m trying to work out sort of a complex description where there are multiple "together with" and "except thereof" parts to a parcel (needs to be one contiguous parcel). In order to avoid the confusion of which parcel all the together with and except thereof apply I’m considering something such as follows:
>
> DESCRIPTION
>
> The Anchor Land described as follows:
>
> (Description of aliquot part(s) of section)
>
>
> TOGETHER WITH the Anchor Land described as follows:
>
> (Metes and bounds of a portion of an aliquot part contiguous to Anchor Land)
>
>
> EXCEPT a portion of the Anchor Land described as follows:
>
> (Metes and bounds of a portion of the Anchor Land)
>
>
> MORE TOGETHER WITH or EXCEPT clauses in any order as long as the Anchor Land is called out.
>
>
> Will this work without being confusing?
>
> Is there a better way (not including converting to all metes and bounds where no together with or excepting thereof clauses are needed)
If I understand your question correctly, this is how we would typically handle the metes and bounds description here in Hawaii:
DESCRIPTION
The Anchor Land described as follows: Call this Lot 1
(Description of aliquot part(s) of section)
TOGETHER WITH the Anchor Land: Call this Lot 1A or something else to give it a unique identity as shown on description dated XX/XX/XXXX.
EXCEPT a portion of the Anchor Land: Call this Lot 1B as shown on description dated XX/XX/XXXX.
MORE TOGETHER WITH or EXCEPT clauses:. Call these Lots 1C, Easement "A", etc.
The M & B of the additional parcels and/or Easements would be written separately.
DESCRIPTION
M & B for Lot 1A
DESCRIPTION
M & B for Lot 1B
And so on. This doesn't seem to make a lot of difference in the amount of writing work in this case, but if you had 8 Lots, each having an interest in a Roadway Lot or Easement, I think it becomes simpler and less confusing.
