Comment based one hundred percent on following this site and a couple predecessors. Numerous examples have been provided by numerous posters. Kent's offerings are excellent examples of "reinventing the wheel" as no earlier description writer has ever met his standards for excellence. Apparently those directly involved in the real estate industry (title, banking, sales, appraising, government, etc.) accept the routine abandonment of prior boundary descriptions in Texas. Such practice is seriously frowned upon in other jurisdictions.
Holy Cow, post: 342875, member: 50 wrote: Comment based one hundred percent on following this site and a couple predecessors. Numerous examples have been provided by numerous posters. Kent's offerings are excellent examples of "reinventing the wheel" as no earlier description writer has ever met his standards for excellence. Apparently those directly involved in the real estate industry (title, banking, sales, appraising, government, etc.) accept the routine abandonment of prior boundary descriptions in Texas. Such practice is seriously frowned upon in other jurisdictions.
In Texas I have read years worth of meted and bounds, and you can see the similarity in the deeds. Owners change, Adjoiners change, the size and type of the iron rod change, maybe the right of way changed, all of those need to be updated in the new metes and bounds. The overall description is not changing. If it is a good metes and bounds I will use it. Capped Iron rod set will be changed to capped iron updated the adjoiners, update where you can find the pervious deed in the court house.
In Texas we do not have the magic survey book telling us how to survey based on the moments we found, which I still dont understand if you have a book telling you how to reset a corner anywhere in a section, based off corners that were found why those corners are always wrong.
Part of the problem is that non-surveyors are routinely allowed to create descriptions and record documents using them. There is no single authority to prevent such from happening.
Another part of the problem are those who demand continuity of descriptions. A description that is all metes and no bounds is perfect. So long as adjoining parcels agree on the metes, there is order and calm in the world. Alter one of the metes (without bounds) and chaos ensues. This is common practice in certain jurisdictions. Obviously it is quite contrary to the general order of surveying. Nevertheless, it is what keeps the usual players happy.
A simple example:
In 1869 someone wrote a description similar to this: Beginning at the southwest corner of the subject section, thence east on the section line to the middle of a creek, thence east on the section line to the middle of the same creek intersecting the section line for the second time, then down the creek to the first point of crossing, being about six rods east of the southwest section corner, thence west to the point of beginning, believed to contain about five acres.
By our standards, that is a horrible description. Nevertheless, the adjoiners have been friendly and agreeable for 146 years. Now we have title companies declaring that description to be uninsurable. We can go out and write an improved metes only description with forty sides to the nearest arc second and one-hundredth of a foot that describes a creek with a bottom roughly 50 feet between the low banks that every one understands is only an approximation and everyone is happy. Title insurance will be issued on the metes only description which notes that it is an approximation as to where the middle of the creek exists on a specific date in 2016, but will change over time. Another surveyor can come through next week and write a similar description with different metes that is his opinion of the exact same property and he will be CONDEMNED for screwing up the integrity of title. Meanwhile, everyone understands that the middle (insert a definition as to what middle really means) will wander as erosion alters the landscape over the decades and centuries.
As to the magic survey book, it is one more tool on the shelf. It may or may not have any significant impact on surveying of non-Government land, which is about 99.9995 percent of all land in my State. Some use it in desperation when they don't know what they are doing in the first place.
It is a great reference as to how things WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN DONE a century or two ago. Reality provides much proof that some early surveyors chose to do what was expeditious in largely uninhabited regions rather than be sticklers for details. Some of the basic truths, however, are critical. Such as the creation of Government lots along the edges of townships and rivers and similar obstructions.
Scott Ellis, post: 342878, member: 7154 wrote: In Texas I have read years worth of meted and bounds, and you can see the similarity in the deeds. Owners change, Adjoiners change, the size and type of the iron rod change, maybe the right of way changed, all of those need to be updated in the new metes and bounds. The overall description is not changing. If it is a good metes and bounds I will use it. Capped Iron rod set will be changed to capped iron updated the adjoiners, update where you can find the pervious deed in the court house.
In Texas we do not have the magic survey book telling us how to survey based on the moments we found, which I still dont understand if you have a book telling you how to reset a corner anywhere in a section, based off corners that were found why those corners are always wrong.
I'm not sure why a description needs to be updated because of change in the bold items. If I am to follow the line of Jones to a called for pipe, and in the field I follow Smith the exact bearing and distance and find a capped rebar, I've got sense enough to know the pipe has been replaced, in the apparent correct spot.
Is Utah a recording state?
I never title or refer to any Property Boundary Description as a "Legal Description."
Many people say that.
As required by law, we give a survey report of our findings.
The drawing and property description is one form for our survey report and the most common.
Some are very brief and contain the minimal language and others can be of great length. I have written both, depending upon the purpose and end result of the survey.
The client, Title company and/or other party can decide what they wish to place in their transferring documents.
Tommy Young, post: 342888, member: 703 wrote: I'm not sure why a description needs to be updated because of change in the bold items. If I am to follow the line of Jones to a called for pipe, and in the field I follow Smith the exact bearing and distance and find a capped rebar, I've got sense enough to know the pipe has been replaced, in the apparent correct spot.
Why would you not update a description with the current owner and adjoiners? Also if it calls for a pipe and you find an iron rod, I would keep digging for whatever my deed called for. This is how some pin cushions are created, or gaps or overlaps. However if the surveyor did his job, and said what he found or set this will eliminate problems.
It may be 20 or mores years before the tract is surveyed again, might as well do the job right, so the surveyor coming behind you knows what you did, what you found or set and where they can find the deeds to the tracts.
Scott Ellis, post: 342920, member: 7154 wrote: Why would you not update a description with the current owner and adjoiners? Also if it calls for a pipe and you find an iron rod, I would keep digging for whatever my deed called for. This is how some pin cushions are created, or gaps or overlaps. However if the surveyor did his job, and said what he found or set this will eliminate problems.
It may be 20 or mores years before the tract is surveyed again, might as well do the job right, so the surveyor coming behind you knows what you did, what you found or set and where they can find the deeds to the tracts.
"Why would you not update a description with the current owner and adjoiners? "
This can't be a serious comment, can it? A description has nothing to do with owners - unless you are referring to bounds calls such as "...to the south line of the Smith property..." or something similar, in which case I would never even consider changing a bounds call. You would be destroying a historical reference that is an integral part of the original description. You could easily be clouding title unless you survey the entire adjoiner and are sure that the new owner's property is EXACTLY the same as the Smith property.
Jim in AZ, post: 343006, member: 249 wrote: "Why would you not update a description with the current owner and adjoiners? "
This can't be a serious comment, can it? A description has nothing to do with owners - unless you are referring to bounds calls such as "...to the south line of the Smith property..." or something similar, in which case I would never even consider changing a bounds call. You would be destroying a historical reference that is an integral part of the original description. You could easily be clouding title unless you survey the entire adjoiner and are sure that the new owner's property is EXACTLY the same as the Smith property.
Yes Jim I was serious. I reference the previous deed in my metes and bounds, the next surveyor can pull that deed to see the historical reference.
Jim what exactly do you do when you survey a property, do you just cut and paste the previous deed? What if the Smith's have not owned that property in 100 years? My surveys are current to the date in which I sign them, that goes for the road right a way, the owner what deed that brought the tract from, the adjoines and their deeds, and what moments I found or set.
I agree with you Brian but the problem at least where I work goes way beyond surveyors. Title folks, government workers and even landowners get their nose into it and even demand a rewritten description.
What about the boundary description on a subdivision plat. The next one I'm doing will list the title descriptions and then refer to the plat itself for the boundary dimensions which, do not match the title document in the math. I'm sure this one will get rejected, then the education and fight begins. Got to start somewhere to bend the ignorant curve!
Holy Cow, post: 342881, member: 50 wrote: Part of the problem is that non-surveyors are routinely allowed to create descriptions and record documents using them. There is no single authority to prevent such from happening.
Another part of the problem are those who demand continuity of descriptions. A description that is all metes and no bounds is perfect. So long as adjoining parcels agree on the metes, there is order and calm in the world. Alter one of the metes (without bounds) and chaos ensues. This is common practice in certain jurisdictions. Obviously it is quite contrary to the general order of surveying. Nevertheless, it is what keeps the usual players happy.
A simple example:
In 1869 someone wrote a description similar to this: Beginning at the southwest corner of the subject section, thence east on the section line to the middle of a creek, thence east on the section line to the middle of the same creek intersecting the section line for the second time, then down the creek to the first point of crossing, being about six rods east of the southwest section corner, thence west to the point of beginning, believed to contain about five acres.
By our standards, that is a horrible description. Nevertheless, the adjoiners have been friendly and agreeable for 146 years. Now we have title companies declaring that description to be uninsurable. We can go out and write an improved metes only description with forty sides to the nearest arc second and one-hundredth of a foot that describes a creek with a bottom roughly 50 feet between the low banks that every one understands is only an approximation and everyone is happy. Title insurance will be issued on the metes only description which notes that it is an approximation as to where the middle of the creek exists on a specific date in 2016, but will change over time. Another surveyor can come through next week and write a similar description with different metes that is his opinion of the exact same property and he will be CONDEMNED for screwing up the integrity of title. Meanwhile, everyone understands that the middle (insert a definition as to what middle really means) will wander as erosion alters the landscape over the decades and centuries.
Yeah, those poor title insurance companies which sell insurance but don't want to take any risk. No sympathy from me. Take the money and assume the risk. I think that in the end they will take the money, the hard part is actually looking at the title docs instead of just pulling them out of the title plant.
I am apparently misunderstanding you. What do you mean by "updating a description?" My state does not grant me that authority so I guess I don't understand what you mean...
Utah is a filing state for boundary surveys. So you can reference the title docs on a survey plat and then show the dimensions of the established boundary (your boundary opinion and reasons) on the plat. It goes into a public record that is not a part of the official title documents (not recorded in the deed records, but filed in the county surveyors office as a public document).
As far as I can see from reviewing filed surveys, it doesn't stop many surveyors from rewriting descriptions and adding to the the long built up Cluster in the records. Seems like just about everybody that crosses the land feels the need to leave their part of the mess.
If you need a reason to go to extrinsic evidence to locate a boundary, about all you need to do to reference the last three descriptions in the deed records. Most that work in the industry seem to think the cluster is normal. Very few have any understanding of the real law. A surveyor rewrite of the description is only the beginning. Some tittle guys will modify that.
At this point I'd just reference the original title description and then maybe add a reference to the filed survey for more boundary location information. It must be a SUPER CLUSTER where you can't file surveys in a public depository.
The surveyors from PLSS land do not always understand surveying in Texas.
In the land of sections, the description does not change.
The property corners may float around from one survey to the next, the description remains the same.
😉
Scott Ellis may be speaking of putting a description on a survey plat, not necessarily a new description for conveyance of the property. But then again...
The great thing about this site is that we have contributors from a little bit of everywhere.
The frustrating thing about this site is that we have contributors from a little bit of everywhere.
It has become very evident that local surveying practice varies tremendously from place to place. Sometimes a State line is where the change happens. Sometimes there are differences in specific portions of a State from that of the remainder. We have Colonial, PLSS, whatever Texas is, some States with both Colonial and PLSS, and some States that must deal with land transactions that pre-date the founding of the United States. On top of all that, we also have contributors from countries all over the world where the very practice of surveying can take on a very different definition.
In some areas property descriptions rarely change in the deed records no matter what bearings and distances appear on a plat created by a surveyor. In other areas it appears that property descriptions may change quite frequently for what is supposed to be the same tract. In some areas a survey plat will include a boundary description in all cases. In other areas a boundary description may be an entirely separate contract. In some areas corner monuments are all that are required. In other areas it appears to be common practice to clear a line of sight between corner monuments with line monuments set as required to assist in the visualization of the line. In some areas a survey plat of a four-sided tract may simply be four lines with bearings, distances and corner monument descriptions. In other areas a survey may include depiction of all easements/rights-of-way/visible utilities/mailboxes/driveways/sidewalks/wetlands/etc. for even the simplest project. In some areas properties normally include roads on the property. In others roads are normally excluded. In some areas any property split requires bureaucratic oversight by one or more entities. In other areas property splits are solely the business of the property owners. In some areas construction-related surveying, other than the tract boundary, is considering engineering surveying and may be performed under an engineering license. In other areas no one other than a licensed surveyor is allowed to do such construction-related surveying. In some areas obtaining a State-issued surveying license may be extremely difficult and include a demand for a great deal of education. In other areas the same issue may be relatively simple. In some areas surveyors are allowed to perform projects relative to drainage while other areas consider that to be engineering and forbidden to surveyors. In some areas claimed precision is of the utmost importance. In other areas it is recognized that rather crude work is perfectly acceptable due to the extenuating circumstances involved. In some areas one must provide GPS-obtained data on their plats. In other areas no such specification exists. In some areas nearly all surveys are high quality, while in other areas scumbag lowballers run the show creating garbage for pennies but the client doesn't know the difference. In some areas the need for survey work is relatively constant over the decades while in other areas huge swings in need for surveys occur based on outside factors.
It's no wonder we like to argue with each other.
Uh, the PLSS isn't in Tennessee.
