Which Legal is better and why?

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL 1
Lot 6, the westerly 9.38 feet of Lot 7, and the adjacent northerly 10.00 feet of the Vacated 20.00 foot wide alley in Block 6, Plat of Picabo, Utah County, Idaho. 

The above described tract of land contains 8,879 square feet, more or less, subject to any existing easements or rights-of-way.


or:



LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL 1
Lot 6, the westerly 9.38 feet of Lot 7, and the adjacent northerly 10.00 feet of the Vacated 20.00 foot wide alley in Block 6, Plat of Picabo, Utah County, Idaho described as follows:
 
BEGINNING at a set 1/2-inch steel pinmonumenting the Northwest corner of said Lot 6, Block 6 of Plat of Hansen;
Thence, following the southerly right-of-way line of Railroad Avenue, South 89° 24' 43" East a distance of 59.38 feet to a set 1/2-inch steel pin;
Thence, leaving said southerly line, South 00° 37' 30" West a distance of 149.54 feet to a set 1/2-inch steel pin on the southerly line of the north half of the Vacated alley;
Thence, following said southerly line, North 89° 23' 09" West a distance of 59.38 feet to a set 1/2-inch steel pin on the westerly line of Lot 6 extended;
Thence, leaving said southerly line and following the westerly line of said Lot 6, North 00° 37' 30" East a distance of 149.51 feet to thePOINT OF BEGINNING.
 
The above described tract of land contains 8,879 square feet, more or less, subject to any existing easements or rights-of-way.

I know which I prefer but.....why?

Most surveyors are going to like the firstone for its brevity and clarity. Lawyers are going to like the second one because you can plot it without reference to any other documents. It stands alone. 

This might be another one of those regional preference deals.  I thought most surveyors would like the second one because it contains calls to physical monuments enabling the description to be more easily retraced.  In CA and I would guess in other recording states, I would like the first one better.  Inserting the monuments in the description kind of interrupts the chain of title.  Pincushioning issues aside, what if the next surveyor comes along and establishes the lines of the first-mentioned particulars and disagrees with the pins in the metes and bounds portion?  Here in CA, I would write the first description, set the pins and file a Record of Survey showing my "opinion" of the location on the ground that would be open to acceptance or rejection in the future. 

The legal description provides enough information so that future surveyors can proceed from point-to-point around the boundaries of a parcel of land in such a way that the retracing surveyor will land on or near each point.

The description is not meant to control the location of the boundary 'forevermore'.

I like the second one.

Richard Schaut

Both descriptions uniquely identify the subject property, so both descriptions are "sufficient" from a legal standpoint.  There's nothing wrong with either one of them. 

When it comes to "better" and "worse," it depends upon how your local system is set up.  If you are lucky to live in an area where your survey is filed in a public repository, then the information about the corner monuments (and a great deal more information than that) can be filed for future land surveyors to recover and rely upon.  The survey will not only describe the monuments, but will offer more details about what other monuments were relied upon to determine the position of the monuments and what methods or procedures were used to determine the location of the monuments.  That information is missing from both descriptions and can never be made part of the descriptions.  They simply cannot contain all of the evidence necessary to locate the boundaries.  Sure, the second description contains "more" information, but it doesn't contain "all" of the information."

I'd prefer the first description recorded in the title record AND the information contained in the second description, along with all the other "missing" information, depicted on a survey filed in the public repository (county surveyor's office or equivalent).

JBS

Number One. Number Two has some classic "don'ts" for writing legals. And then , it seems to have a minor problem with closure.
MLB

"They simply cannot contain all of the evidence necessary to locate the boundaries.  Sure, the second description contains "more" information, but it doesn't contain "all" of the information."


It's pretty obvious JB, you've never read one of Kent's descriptions. LOL

But like you said, either on is fine.

Most of the general public doesn't understand the reason for the description and are left with desire to follow certain guide lines, regardless of the validity of those guidelines. it's up to us to show them the error of their ways.

Dugger

MLB
You have my curiosity arroused about do's and don'ts.  Could you elaborate?  The closure is 1:140000 unless I am missing something.  I guess that is not close enough for some.  I wanted some other input on styles, preferences.  So far, I see a couple of different ones.  Thanks

D.J. around here if you put a metes and bounds component inside your legal description it must have a 0,0 error of closure. A call to an adjoiner automatically creates a senior right. I was taught not to do that. If lots six and seven were created by simultaneous conveyance you shouldn't alter those relationships after the fact. If those "pins" are part of the original subdivision that should be stated. If they aren't the document that established them should be cited. Did Hanson set them all?

Are those courses shown on the Picabo Plat? Or are they on Hanson's Plat? Or did you create them with a Plat?

Sometimes less is more.
MLB

It's pretty obvious JB, you've never read one of Kent's descriptions. LOL

Dugger

The reason Kent wastes so much of his time writing 10-page descriptions is because the surveyors in TX have not seen the importance of providing a public repository for their survey records.  (which is precisely my point)

"One picture is worth ten thousand words" ;o)

JBS

D.J., generally speaking, mixing aliquot or plat lot descriptions with metes and bounds is not recommended. I have been on both side of "the counter" on this one. I have had my descriptions sent back for clarity, and I have rejected some. It is true sometimes you have to break away from convention. But the general idea is to try not to introduce conflict or confusion when it previously has not existed.

Then again, it depends.
MLB

I like the brevity of the first, but the documentation of the monuments that the second provides.

I disagree with MLB about automatically creating a senior right.  You are describing lines by lot number of simutaneous lots.  Referring to them in a description as being along the whicheverly line of Lot X will not make Lot X senior.

If you are not dealing with simultaneous conveyances within your description, a senior right may be created by implying an acquiesence to the terms of the adjoining deed, whether or not it had been senior previously.

If your bounds are called out correctly, such that you are not creating a senior right, then the second one is fine.  If the southerly line of Railroad Ave is coincident with the northerly line of Lot 6 and of Lot 7, if they were not all created in the same subdivision, you may want to call out the Lot lines.  Same with the alley.

Here's a slight rewrite which eliminates the concerns about reordering seniority and perhaps serves to clarify portions of your boundary resolution (if the road and alley are not part of the simultaneous conveyance):

Lot 6, the westerly 9.38 feet of Lot 7, and the adjacent northerly 10.00 feet of the Vacated 20.00 foot wide alley in Block 6, Plat of Picabo, Utah County, Idaho described as follows:
 
BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of said Lot 6, Block 6 of Plat of Hansen, marked by a set 1/2-inch steel pin ;
Thence, following the southerly right-of-way line of Railroad Avenue being coincident with the northerly line of Lot 6, South 89° 24' 43" East a distance of 50.00 feet to the northerly corner common to Lots 6 and 7, marked by a set 1/2-inch steel pin;
Thence continuing South 89° 24' 43" East along the southerly right-of-way line of Railroad Avenue being coincident with the northerly line of Lot 7 a distance of 9.38 feet;
Thence, leaving said southerly line, parallel with the line common to Lots 6 and 7 South 00° 37' 30" West a distance of 149.54 feet to a set 1/2-inch steel pin on the southerly line of the north half of the Vacated alley;
Thence, following said southerly line, parallel with and 10' perpendicular distance southerly from the southerly line of Lot 7 and of Lot 6 North 89° 23' 09" West a distance of 59.38 feet to a set 1/2-inch steel pin on the westerly line of Lot 6 extended;
Thence, leaving said southerly line and following the westerly line of said Lot 6 and its southerly extension, North 00° 37' 30" East a distance of 149.51 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
 
The above described tract of land contains 8,879 square feet, more or less, subject to any existing easements or rights-of-way.



I prefer to call the corner first and the monument second, going by the rule that the first mentioned particular is presumed to control over later particulars should they be in conflict.  Just in case a monument was misplaced, it is the land corner which controls, not the misplaced monument (that discussion could go on for a while, but I'll leave it at that).

This description clarifies that the road and the alley are adjoining the lots rather than merely adjacent to them, and that either by simultaneous conveyance or otherwise in your opinion, the lines are coincident.  You clearly show the intent that the easterly line is parallel to the lot line 6/7 and that the centerline of the alley is parallel to the southerly line of the lots.  And lastly, you can't go along the westerly line of Lot 6 until you get to it, thus you also have to go along the southerly extension.


IMO, the main problem with adding a m&b description to an aliquot or lot & block/parts description is that some yahoo is liable to come along at some later date, come up with slightly different measurements between the pins, presume himself a superior measurer to you and pincushion all but the two corners he decides to anchor the geometric figure described by the dimensions to.

Simple is better.  If our favorite discussion about Garfunkel's plat had a metes & bounds description for each lot, wouldn't that add to the confusion we've observed over the last two months.

What difference does it make?
We're just going to go by the blazes on the trees and the fencelines and what the neighbor across the road says he did ten years ago. Ask Garfunkel.
Seriously, I prefer the first one. Fewer chances of typos creeeping in.
And as far as closure goes, at least at first writing, aren't we obliged to duplicate the plat dimensions? That would account for the not-perfect closure.

Thanks guys!  I prefer the first, but alas, I am not the one stamping the legals.  I do like some of your phrasing Rusty, I will try to introduce them into our company standard phrases. 
Doug

I like the first one as long as it is comes with a drawing of the survey.

The Second Legal Description actually contains 2 different descriptions in one document (1) An Aliquot Description and then (2) A Metes and Bounds Description.  The Second Legal Description is ambiguous on its face by definition, is it not ?

The First Legal Description would probably be preferred by Title Companies and Attorneys since it keeps the Chain of Title intact and is very clean.   

 

With proper overcalls included, it is not a second description, it merely adds particulars of measurement.  Without those overcalls, it potentially is a separate description.

Rusty Chain:
With proper overcalls included, it is not a second description, it merely adds particulars of measurement.  Without those overcalls, it potentially is a separate description.
 

I have never heard of the term "Overcall" here in California...is this the same thing Brown and Clark refer to as "Controlling Calls"? 

I have never heard of the term "Overcall" here in California...is this the same thing Brown and Clark refer to as "Controlling Calls"? 

Yes, same thing.

If nothing to the contrary could be found in any prior deed or plat, wouldn't the lines that form the easterly and westerly sides of the alley be at right angles to the centerline of the alley in the first description? Doesn't this make the first and second description slightly different?

Ashton:


If nothing to the contrary could be found in any prior deed or plat, wouldn't the lines that form the easterly and westerly sides of the alley be at right angles to the centerline of the alley in the first description? Doesn't this make the first and second description slightly different?

I don't see anything about right angles in this thread.  It was common in older maps to show or imply right angles, but unless I missed something looking back through the posts, I think it's an assumption here.

Even if the original plat showed right angles, that does not mean the two descriptions here are describing slightly different properties or lines.  The first gives clear, brief general descriptions of the lines which form the bounds of the parcel and gives no measurement info.  The second gives those same bounds, but also says "here is what I measured these lines to be".

The completion to that implied statement which should not need to be stated explicitly is "..., but your measurements may vary from mine."  Whenever you are reading a metes and bounds description, except under rare and specific circumstance,s the bounds (a call for a line or monument) will always control over the metes (measurements : bearings and distances).  If there are calls to corners, monuments, or lines, those are the boundaries regardless of the measurements also stated (which should be viewed as additional, non-controlling information) also reported and regardless of any differences you find between your measurements and those stated in the description.

Rusty Chain, the reason I think the first version contains right angles is that it seems to be a reversion of an abandoned road to an adjoining landowner, and in those cases the extension from the boundary of the adjoining owner to the center of the road is at right angles to the centerline of the road. But there really isn't enough information presented to be sure if this is a reversion, or some other kind of transfer.

One also wonders how a modern surveyor would be allowed to create new boundaries without setting monuments, and why those monuments would not be mentioned in the description.

Ashton,

From a strictly technical view, I see your point.  In nearly all jurisdictions, reversions of streets are most often from the front lot corner to centerline at right angles to centerline.  I'm sure we could find plenty of exceptions to that general rule, but that right angle rule would most often be applicable in a case like this.

However, the angle between the sidelines and the centerline is only 39" off of a right angle, which would make a positional difference of just under two thousandths of a foot at centerline.  From a practical standpoint, there is no difference.