It definitely is not an aliquot description and it's not really a metes and bounds description, although it is closer to the metes and bounds category.
To be aliquot it needs to be a fraction of a fraction. I'm thinking the following doesn't really qualify as an aliquot description: The east 280/2640 of the north 300/2640 of the northeast quarter of section 14-22-12.
So I get home and dust off my "Land Survey Systems" by McEntyre. In Chapter 10 - Metes and Bonds descriptions I find a note in red I wrote to myself "Know". McEntyre writes: Authors generally list eight types of metes and bounds descriptions. These types are (1) true metes and bounds, (2) metes and bounds, (3) strip, (4) bounds (recital), (5) division line, (6) proportional parts, (7) linear and (8) area. The one I tried to pass of was linear.
Then I find this: For the purposes of discussion of quasi metes and bounds descriptions in this book, we will use the types of quasi metes and bounds descriptions listed earlier in this chapter. Then he lists # 3 to 8 above.
What the county wants is a metes description which is what most of the surveyors write. N 89 E a distance of 300.... thence.... Not too many bounds are recited on most descriptions, however if the description is part of the plat the bounds are shown there. Funny thing is the bearings, distances and bounds were on the face of the plat. Rejected anyway.
What the county wants is a metes description
That's been my experience. They think putting the bearings and distances in a discription creates a metes and bounds discription.
I write them anyway. I file a drawing and discription with each survey, but, when the parcel is resold sometimes reference to the drawing will be removed. Not that some research wouldn't revel it, but a little bit more time writing the legal is worth it, at least that's what I've found.
Intersecting strips and bounds!