Vent, vent, vent update

Attaboy, Bruce.

So...you do not label the courses and distances on the actual easement map? Which comes first the map or the description? I would think that you would need to label the map as well so that, down the road, some dumb ass surveyor like me could verify that the written description had been transcribed correctly. I would think that the map, being a report of the results of the survey, would be the record document not the written description.

I have seen the instance where a CAD operator inadvertently clicked on the symbol rather than the pt which could result in erroneous description if you were to depend on the description written by the cogo program.

Just my thoughts.

I've always felt that the plan should show everything and the easement documents refer to the plan. Saves possible scriveners errors in future conveyances.

In my opinion the law firm is making a reasonable request.

In Arizona the legal description is the prime, not the sketch attached which just gives a helpful view of what the easement looks like. In my case, the sketch is generated from the same COGO file by moi, no CAD jockeys involved.

Most of the time my clients (or someone in their food chain) like to follow the description on the plat, course-by-course; one finger on the description, one finger on the plat. I generally accommodate them by annotating the plat accordingly. No big deal.

Except when the subdivision is created without an easement, the easement is then created after the fact with a sketch, then the use of the easement is later changed without a sketch.
Oh and the sketch did not show all of the annotation. Fortunately it was just a 10' wide deal, but if you are going to annotate more than just a 10' width, get all the dimensions!
Figuring out that mess was an hour out of my day yesterday.

I usually draft the map first and check closures then prepare the legal from the mapping.

I import the courses into Word, but most lawyers in NY would require the bearings and distances on a map.

Bruce, that is exactly the process. The map shows the general configuration and where it is on the property, the description describes it. All on 8 1/2 x 11 so it can get recorded with the deed.

I think where some people (your attorney & perhaps some surveyors in different states) get confused is that they want to treat that sketch as a record of survey, when it is simply an accompaning exhibit to the deed. Technically, we don't even need to include the map, but it's helpfull for clarification. Also should note that in AZ the easement does not need to be monumented, unless requested.

But, if the easement is created as part of a subdivion or land division, then showing all pertinent data on the record of survey map is necessary, but the accompanying metes & bounds description is not.

I just tag label them. Neater than labeling all the lines and seems to satisfy everyone. I don't mind them checking my work before things get finalized. Tends to limit liability in my view.

Aaaarrrrgh. No, what they want is an annotated map, just for them, not to be recorded, so they can "check" the legal description. All that will check is that my program which writes to Word will write as well to AutoCAD, and after 30 years I'm pretty sure it does.

What they need to check, and this is the part that escapes them, is the bounds part of the legal descriptions. You know, THENCE along the South line to the West line... If I've made a mistake in writing the legal that is where it will show up, as I call out the West line when I mean the East line. I've told them I welcome that kind of check because two sets of eyes are better than one.

It is a state to state thing.

I have always considered both, the drawing and the property description to be a metes and bounds.

The property description is a metes and bounds in word form.

The drawing is a metes and bounds in a graphic form.

Both tell the same basic information of what and where with bearings, distances, monuments, adjoining and subject property deed references, encumbrances and acreage and such.

Attorneys with their plak and map and sketch of where our stobs are references tend to let me equate to their prolific practice of illegible legal jargon (text that really means the lawyer cannot be responsible for making an error and you have to pay them too much for nothing and sometimes that no matter what happens no other lawyer is going to object until you line his pockets with silver and gold).

I am with YOU Bruce.

Sounds to me like they are asking for an awfully cluttered drawing.

Cluster Fox Trot.

I may not be understanding the question, but in my state the standard is as follows:
(required) h. The horizontal length (distance) and direction (bearing or azimuth) of each line as specified in the legal description and as determined in the actual survey process. Seems unreasonable to leave courses off the plat.

That is reasonable in a description, but the problem occurs when the sketch is fully annotated as well and people take the easy way out and just use the sketch instead of actually reading the description, which is what Wattles warned about it.

I've always hated how you can't use a shaded pen on exhibits/plats and the minimum 11 point font. I should be able to dictate how my map looks.

Gotcha, makes sense to me. Still, if they are willing to pay for it why not provide it? Or is that the problem, they don't want to pay but think they're entitled to it.

Ah, see your reasoning below. You may be right.

I traced a description that had a sketch exhibit accompnaying the metes-and-bounds written description. The metes and bounds had number by each course.

The sketch had numbers by each course as well with a table referencing the numbers. The problem was that there were two places that the descriptions diversed from each other (if you will). (and came back not making one close and the other a bust) I think it was based on a design and the design changed and they used either the older text with the new drawing or the new text with the older drawing.

In my opinion, once a sketch or drawing is referenced into a description, it becomes part of the four corners of that description. (Some are arguing that the description takes some kind of seniority over the plat, I would argue that that is true except when the plat is referenced in the desciption and made a part of it.) I say the above created an ambiguity.

YOu can introduce ambiguities if you are going to annotate everything in the world and reference all of the places you wrote distances. It can be quite the task just to make a revision and make sure you took care of every place you had to revise it.

Sorry for the long post, but I think the whole point of Bruce's post is, about nonexperts "correcting" our work in an arrogant way. If I were looking at an engineer's drawing and was confused, or looking at how someone was doing a specific task, I would tend to ask why or how they were doing it that way. They may realize that they missed something or they may educate me on the logic behind what they were doing. I feel like more people think they understand surveying than most any other technical field.

Two weeks ago the attorneys asked to see all of the proposed easements on the one ALTA survey drawing. Obviously a mess because they overlap, so I had to use creative hatching to try to make each one clear. Now picture all of that with added annotation of bearings and distances. They'll never decipher it. Never.

What we've done under similar (but admittedly less complicated) situations is assign each easement an alpha-ID and then write out the metes and bounds as course "A-1", "A-2", etc, until all the easmements have been described.

The written descriptions are printed out on the outer edges of my plat and all the plan view gets is leaders with "A-1", A-2" "B-1", "B-2" pointing to each course.