The north 280 ft of the east 300 ft. of ......whatever.
I have understood this type of description to be a type of metes and bounds or quasi-metes and bounds. Agree-disagree?
Although not blessed with the tradition "commencement or beginning" point descriptions, I would consider it a metes and bounds.
The metes being the distances in the description and the bounds being the boundary of the parent parcel.
You have the beginnings of an "aliquot parts" description.
No, only a portion of the parent tract which could be an aliquot part of something but doesn't need to be.
Metes and Bounds because of the lack of anything else more descriptive.
jud
Fractional part.
My 0.2 cents
I see that it should be a proportional division (NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4) to be a an "aliquot parts", but as this description (so far) contains no "bounds" (a call to / along a feature), I would not call it a "metes and bounds". Just my opinion.
It does create a bounds. The north line and the east line of the original tract dictate the direction/bearing of the South line and west line of the new tract, of stated distance. It's sloppy and lazy description writing but metes and bounds nonetheless.
It's an incomplete description 😉
“The north 280 ft of the east 300 ft. of ......whatever”
Aliquot:
The north 280 ft of the east 300 ft. the Northeast one-quarter of Section etc…
Metes and Bounds:
The north 280 ft of the east 300 ft. of some tract or parcel recorded or unrecorded.
Just my 0.04’
Have a great weekend! B-)
> The north 280 ft of the east 300 ft. of ......whatever.
>
> I have understood this type of description to be a type of metes and bounds or quasi-metes and bounds. Agree-disagree?
Definitely not a metes and bounds description. I would classify it is a portion of an aliquout part description.
imo. Metes and Bounds would be more like " beginning at the NW corner, thence East 300 feet to the east line of (adjoiner)...... thence along said East line to the south line of (adjoiner)..... and so on.
Thanks
The County GIS expert says its not a metes and bounds, its aliquot. Sounds like he has support here so I won't press the issue although I don't go along with aliquot. It is part of a metes and bounds tract BTW. I thought it was a nice clean way to do it but they want bearings and distances. Whatever. Choose your battles wisely.
line bender
It ain't no PLSS aliquot part description!
It is a metes and bounds description without the bounds!
Aliquot part descriptions do not have any stinkin measurement metes!
Keith
> Thanks
>
> The County GIS expert says its not a metes and bounds, its aliquot. Sounds like he has support here so I won't press the issue although I don't go along with aliquot. It is part of a metes and bounds tract BTW. I thought it was a nice clean way to do it but they want bearings and distances. Whatever. Choose your battles wisely.
Potentially it is a nice clean way, however we all know the GIS experts have no comprehension of 'survey' and therefore cannot map said description into the (more than likely) GIS cartoon.
I don't think it makes any difference what the description is called as long as you know how to interpret it.
Steve has the best answer!
Common method used around here, never got in a pis_in match on what to label it, other than Description, we all know what an aliquot part of a section is, so no problem created there.
jud
Common method used around here
Yeah, but how will the computer guys at the county put into their system.
They need to come up with the area after all.
And to the nearest .00001sq ft!;-)
I don't know about the ability's of the computer guys in your area, but here they are quite capably of following the intent of such a description.
jud
The county platting requirement is metes and bounds descriptions. I thought I gave them one. Silly me.
Not so much here, they want those bearings and distances-they think that's what makes a good description.
It has to close and for one guy there needed to be a punch mark on the cap. 😉