I did not read all of the posts, but I think the description (field notes) is fantastic.
Following someone who actually applied thought to the description is wonderful.
And the scannable coord list: I do a lot of shopping centers (well, not not a lot nowadays) with millions of lease or esmt courses just waiting for typos, ...the coord list is a timesaver.
I can't get paid for those kind of luxury descriptions, but I would love following that kind of thoughtful description.
P.S.: in my County, they will not record anything other than an 8.5 x 11. Descriptions are the coin of the realm. High Five to anyone who records a description like Kent did.
I just wanted to say thanks to Kent
For:
Sharing his story, of a survey well done.
For going beyond the call of duty.
I'd have no problem retracing his survey.
Beats most of the work I am seeing.
I think Kent is a bit askew, in the "be sweet" department, but, who cares about sweet, when you can "do it right"?
I'll take a good survey, over a sweet personality any day!
He he he
🙂
Thanks Kent. Ya done a Good Job!
Nate
> I didn't read all the replies, but my reaction is too much information.
I didn't read anything past the sentence.......
You might consider reading all of the replies. There are more than just your opinion and Kent's in them, and you might actually gather something from them.
(Did you read all of the description?)
😉
Just "funnin' ya". But it is actually a worthwhile thread to read in my humble opinion.
As a surveyor I like the description. If I were an attorney I could make a career out of it. Just too much there to argue about for those not in the business. But hey, if you can't beat em, join em.
> As a surveyor I like the description. If I were an attorney I could make a career out of it. Just too much there to argue about for those not in the business.
Duane, I'm going to guess that there would be arguments regardless of the form of the description. The boundaries of Lot 19 presented in the description are my professional opinion, of course, as is fundamentally any boundary determination by a surveyor similarly his or her professional opinion. What I've done is to lay out the evidence in a way that I think would actually tend to foreclose future arguments. Usually, they revolve around points of view constructed from different sets of evidence. So the more evidence that is preserved in some form, the more likely surveying opinions will converge to a common solution. That's been my experience, at any rate.
True enough. But it does combine an evidentiary report with a property description. In the course of a retracement survey we know there are usually more than one possible location but only one correct location. However, I'm not so sure it's a good idea for the grantor to convey a parcel with a contract that points out the discrepancy. Likewise, not sure the grantee should accept it.
The other problem I see is that the parties are not going to really understand it. Can we hold them to a contract they can't understand? Even though it's our job to help them express their intent, can we go too far?
It's clear to me that the intent of this contract is to convey to precise mathematical locations. But the parties probably think the intent is to convey to certain markers on the ground. The grantee might use the markers 10 years from now, unaware that they have shifted slightly. Does the surveyor have a duty to maintain the markers in the original precise position? This kind of precision might be necessary in some areas, but it is realistic to expect compliance with the lines to this type of precision in a rural area?
Just because we can do something with modern technology, does it mean we should?
Excellent work Kent; lawschool messed up my brain:)
Duane
> True enough. But it does combine an evidentiary report with a property description. In the course of a retracement survey we know there are usually more than one possible location but only one correct location. However, I'm not so sure it's a good idea for the grantor to convey a parcel with a contract that points out the discrepancy. Likewise, not sure the grantee should accept it.
>
Well, there are discrepancies just by virtue of the fact that the lots were originally laid out in 1877 on open prairie. I'm not sure how a surveyor can eliminate those or why he would want to hide them. As for the difference of opinion of the 1938 and 1961 survey and my correction of both, what reciting both the 1938 and 1961 locations shows is a general lack of mutual reliance upon either line. That was one of the necessary preconditions for finding corrections to be proper at this late date.
> The other problem I see is that the parties are not going to really understand it. Can we hold them to a contract they can't understand? Even though it's our job to help them express their intent, can we go too far?
Well, I took the landowner out and showed him the corners. He could point out to you where Rod and Cap No.153 is, for example, if you show up without survey equipment.
> It's clear to me that the intent of this contract is to convey to precise mathematical locations.
How do you get that from the description? It calls for monuments at all of the corners and gives the exact locations of those monuments as determined by survey both by ties by course and distance to other monuments and by geodetic grid coordinates, but the monuments are in place on the ground and would control the partition lines of Lot 19.
> But the parties probably think the intent is to convey to certain markers on the ground.
Well, they'd be right.
> The grantee might use the markers 10 years from now, unaware that they have shifted slightly. Does the surveyor have a duty to maintain the markers in the original precise position?
Yes, a surveyor ought to be interested in determining where a corner was originally marked using the best available evidence. The way that this scenario will play out, most likely, is that the East line of the 90.00 acre tract will be fenced, and in the course of that the monuments at the actual corners (aside from the rods in the county road) will be destroyed or shifted way out of position. The next surveyor ought to have enough sense to determine the original position of the corner using (a) the reference marks about 20 ft. away (a distance chosen to fall between fence posts) and (b) the geodetic grid coordinates showing the relation of the corner to other corners on the tract.
> This kind of precision might be necessary in some areas, but it is realistic to expect compliance with the lines to this type of precision in a rural area?
Yes, when you consider that this is a developing area. It's the probable land use ten years from now that matters to me.
> Just because we can do something with modern technology, does it mean we should?
So, would it be fair to restate your question as follows: "If it is easy with modern technology that is widely available to make a survey of high quality, should a surveyor neglect to use it knowing that the quality of his or her work will be much lower?" What would a lawyer do with such conscious neglect of common methods in the event that some problem arises?
Kent,
Although you are obviously thorough and I am impressed with your attempt at a comprehensive approach to legal description writing, I would find your legal description to be difficult to deal with.
Some comments:
There is ambiguity in regard to establishment hierarchy between different elements in your legal description. These elements include recorded documents, maps, coordinates, area, tie data, and monuments. For example, what is the status of Coordinates? Might a surveyor use these, say, 100 years from now if the physical monuments are gone, or should he go back to the deed? To the last course? To the tie distance? Use area to clarify? From your legal description this is an open question, i.e., ambiguity. Also, your areas are stated in absolute terms. Do you intend this? If so, a method of adjusting courses or distances to obtain the absolute areas should be clear in the description.
You have wording such as ‘being taken’ ‘taken for’, etc. that I have never seen before in a legal description, and this wording is potentially confusing. I am not sure how placing information regarding your state of mind can further the goal of a legal description.
You are obviously taking a ‘more is better’ approach. Why not include your field notes, correspondence with the client, calcs. etc? How do you decide where to draw the line?
I could go on, but it is clear to me that we have fundamentally different notions of the function of a legal description.
Sincerely,
Lewis Soloff (PLS, CA)
Lewis
Texas is different; they don't have any way to record a boundary survey map unless it is a Subdivision too. This is how they do it but only when the property changes hands.
> Although you are obviously thorough and I am impressed with your attempt at a comprehensive approach to legal description writing, I would find your legal description to be difficult to deal with.
That is hard for me to comprehend. You have the geodetic grid coordinates of all points positioned in the description, so finding them on the ground is a trivial exercise. The very old monuments that it took real effort to find are now very light work for some surveyor to find with my description in hand. Likewise, the description sets out the complete rationale for the construction of the boundaries of the tract subdivided, Lot 19 of the 1877 subdivision. So that one is presented whipped into shape as well. The solution to a retracement problem that would take quite a bit of time to work from scratch is now open to view in perhaps fifteen minutes of office time.
> There is ambiguity in regard to establishment hierarchy between different elements in your legal description. These elements include recorded documents, maps, coordinates, area, tie data, and monuments. For example, what is the status of Coordinates? Might a surveyor use these, say, 100 years from now if the physical monuments are gone, or should he go back to the deed?
Well, the description shows the evidence upon which three different classes of boundaries were determined:
a) the East line of Lot 19 that is the line of the original land grant as patented in 1872,
b) the lines of the 1877 subdivision of the original land grant, and
c) the lines of the present subdivision of Lot 19 as determined by my resurvey.
What the description recites is actually the evidence from which each of the three classes of boundaries were determined. Considering the ravages of time, I think it to be a good possibility that ten years from now much less of the evidence that I found in place will still exist. So, in that light, my description will be very nearly the last word on some evidentiary matters. That is, there will be no real basis left to dispute the findings.
>To the last course? To the tie distance? Use area to clarify? From your legal description this is an open question, i.e., ambiguity.
I'm afraid that I don't quite understand your concern. The description recites various bits of evidence of the boundaries of the classes (a) and (b) described above. When that evidence is no longer available, my record of the work is all that remains. There is hardly any chance for ambiguity or inconsistency when there is no other evidence remaining.
>Also, your areas are stated in absolute terms. Do you intend this?
Actually, if you note, the area is recited as follows:
"CONTAINING in all 90.00 acres of land within the metes set forth above" In other words, the statement is that the metes of the description contain 90.00 acres, which they do. That is hardly a fertile source of problems to state that arithmetic fact.
> You have wording such as ‘being taken’ ‘taken for’, etc. that I have never seen before in a legal description, and this wording is potentially confusing.
The purpose is to offer up my conclusion as to the identities of various monuments and other evidence. That is what resurveying is all about: searching for evidence, analyzing the evidence, and arriving at certain conclusions. Where a corner is proven circumstantially, i.e. it is not self-proving either from the nature of the monument itself or its nearby accessories, it's merely a useful note to let posterity know what I considered it to be. This gives them the benefit of my/the grantor's intentions that the description was based upon, in case there is ever any question.
>I am not sure how placing information regarding your state of mind can further the goal of a legal description.
Well, that is a fundamental piece of information for the benefit of future surveyors who want to retrace the work. The intentions of the description are explained from the interpretation placed upon the evidence.
> You are obviously taking a ‘more is better’ approach. Why not include your field notes, correspondence with the client, calcs. etc? How do you decide where to draw the line?
I draw the line at what works. There actually is very little superfluous detail in that description. If you think you see any, I'd be glad to explain the purpose that I have in mind for it. I believe that it all serves a purpose.
> I could go on, but it is clear to me that we have fundamentally different notions of the function of a legal description.
Yes, in California, I suspect that you depend upon recorded maps for resurvey purposes and use the written description as simply a very abbreviated way of identifying the land that is seen in full detail upon the map. In this case, the only map is one that was recorded in 1877, the survey that laid out Lot 19. That map is basically a sketch that is relatively uninformative.
Comparing apples to apples
There is no comparison between Ca and Tx, with respect to the fundemental notions of the form and function of a deed description. In all but the most limited circumstances ,(for a new subdivision), land is conveyed via a deed that references a map. When there is a survey of a subdivision created by a metes and bound description, Ca surveyors are required to file a map. Kent apparently does no have to file anything other than a deed.
I wonder if other Texas surveyor's are as thorough? Kent do you have copy of another Texas deed,not your own, that is a good example of the customary practice in Texas?
I have seen a desription of a parcel that was conveyed, but it was conveyed without benefit of a retracing survey and is a simple reference to a map in Forth Worth...
Comparing apples to apples
> I wonder if other Texas surveyor's are as thorough? Kent do you have copy of another Texas deed,not your own, that is a good example of the customary practice in Texas?
Yes, I have plenty of them in my files, but I'd hate to post one prepared by a living colleague without his or her permission. I do have many written by surveyors who are no longer among the living, though. I'll see what I can do.
The somewhat novel elements of my description are:
a) the extensive use of accurate geodetic grid coordinates keyed to the description,
b) the outline format of the description itself, favoring legibility over compactness,
c) the somewhat more detailed descriptions of boundary markers, and
d) the semi-parenthetical explanatory notes that provide supporting details.
> I have seen a desription of a parcel that was conveyed, but it was conveyed without benefit of a retracing survey and is a simple reference to a map in Forth Worth...
Sure, it's a common practice in Texas to convey lots in subdivisions describing the land simply by reference to the record plat. Unless the plat doesn't adequately describe the parcel for some reason, the description by reference to it is best practice.
