Bad deed

I have an adjoiner deed, cut from a parent parcel that goes like this:

Beginning at a point in the centerline of the county highway; thence north 67 1/2 degrees east 175 feet, thence south 22 1/2 degrees east 155 feet, thence westerly 186 feet to a point at the centerline of the county highway which is 100 feet southerly from point of beginning, thence north 22 1/2 degrees west 100 feet along the centerline of county highway to point of beginning, containing .63 acres, more or less.

This obviously doesn't close if westerly is west, nor is the area even close. That's the worst bust.

The county highway actually has plans that indicate the bearing on the highway is north 22 1/2 degrees west, so I'm sure that part's good. Also there are 'sister parcels' to the NW with similar descriptions, and they all close and work. They may have even been 'set out', I hesitate to say surveyed but maybe, by some highway engineers. Circa 1960.

Oh, yeah. Only two pipes on the 3 parcels to the NW (one on the ROW and the other at the back of the property), and none on this one. nada. No particular reason for them to disappear.

Occupation is the standard lawnmowing stuff bleeding out into an absent adjoiner property. No buildings over.

No surveys of record on any of them.

I've got some theories about this, but I thought I'd kick it out there for the board's interest.

What do you guys think?

William, your deed seems to contain more questions than answers. It is always a problem when the POB is not referenced to some other object with a tie, like for instance a Station on that County Road. And even that presumes the County Road hasn't moved since the parcel was created. If the "sister parcels" were created at the same time, you might be able to work out some equitable line agreements. If you have a junior parcel, it could be more problematic.

It looks like you may have to do some work on that "parent parcel" to fix the lines in a defensible position.

This is yet another example of how deed staking is all too often an exercise in futility.

Good luck,
MLB

Thanks for the reply, MLB.

Well, it made it on here, so it's not normal. ;-))

It's a real deed; and I'm not trying to be tricky.

No 'stationing' on the road, but there was a distance call down the road from an old intersection and the sister parcels are tied together by that. The closest pipe is 300' to the NW, though. I could stake the POB using the deed distance and it would be reasonable. The greater problem is on the south. Sorry if I omitted the ties to the sisters; 300 feet, plus 40 feet, and another 120, then to the intersection with a distance.

The road hasn't changed; the bearing works well down the center. The parcel has been cut out of the parent. No other complications.

So really the deed itself is slightly bad, but the acreage is the real riddle.

There is always the possibilty of a misprint or transcription error, of course, and a math error as well.

In terms of the geometry of the parcel and its closure, it isn't the worst I've ever seen.  The direction of "westerly" can be any bearing between N 67º30' W and S 67º30 W.  When I build the parcel based upon the info you've provided (I "backed in" the closing bearing and distance) and force close the third call, I get  S 84º56'50" W 183.44'.  A 2.5 foot closure error on a parcel created before the time of EDM's and sub 10" guns isn't bad.  (Circa 1960)

I wouldn't sweat the acreage.  The layperson tends to place too much emphasis on acreage, while we surveyors know that acreage is a calculated value.   An acreage can never be directly measured; it can only ever be derived from measurements.  It is therefore subject not only to the systematic and random errors of observed measurements, but also to any human error in performing the calculation.  In my opinion this is the core reason why acreage is so low on the list of priority of calls. 

You've stated that you have a point of commencement?  I'm unclear about this, but it seems to me that if you do have a reference to a monument (old intersection) that places the location of the POB a certain distance down the road, then you have a pretty good place to start.  The center of the road is also a monument, one you can and should hold to all day long.  

The problem seems to be on the interior lot corners - by what you have written no physical or record mons were called for.  This will probably give you the most heartburn, especially if you find mons for the corners that fit the lot measurements but don't land at the record position for the parcel.  I know you already wrote that you found very few mons, but you never know.

You said the greatest problem is on the south; what exactly is the nature of the problem?  Are you referring to the error found in the third call, or something like an angry neighbor to the south?

In my opinion. you need to start at the start - which lots came out first from the parent parcel?  Build them first based on senior rights and work forward from there.  If by chance this parcel was the first one out, then your job may actually be relatively easy:

• Establish the POB using the reference to the old intersection.
• Hold the 100' alignment of the center of the road and draw the first 2 calls.
• Force close the 3rd call onto the sw'ly corner.
• Close the parcel back to the POB using the 100' call.   

Senior rights here dictate that the first parcel out "gets" its due.  Its due along the third call is open to interpretation.  Coming from a colonial state, I tend to hold direction over distance when applying the rules of construction.  For this reason I would not "give" the parcel the186 feet called for, I would force close that line at 183.44 feet.  While this process is tantamount to the reviled "deed staking", it is the correct approach IF the parcel is senior.  

Sorry if this has been a lecture.  Hope this helps, and keep us posted.

Thanks for the reply, and no, I don't take it for a lecture.

I noticed going over the acreage that if one doesn't divide the triangle part by 1/2, 100 x 175 = 27,125 or .6227 acres. In those days, they probably did that calc on a slide rule, and so there's a good chance that's how they arrived at .63 acres.

Where bearings are given to a half-degree and distances to whole feet, it sounds a lot like a do-it-yourself job without professional instruments of that day.  I'd interpret the numbers in that context.  A carpenter's tape might get them within a couple tenths, and a builder's level with degree marks would get angles to a half degree.  

Are there any other lines on adjoiners that one or more of the parcel lines would have been intended to line up with?

Does it close any better if distance values are taken as slope instead of horizontal?

Where bearings are given to a half-degree and distances to whole feet, it sounds a lot like a do-it-yourself job without professional instruments of that day.  I'd interpret the numbers in that context.  A carpenter's tape might get them within a couple tenths, and a builder's level with degree marks would get angles to a half degree. 

Maybe, but see below. What's evident is that the closing was either not measured well or was calculated wrong. I can't recreate that math mistake if it was calced. I'd say from the absence of corners that it was never staked.

Are there any other lines on adjoiners that one or more of the parcel lines would have been intended to line up with?

Yeah, there are 3 other parcels of varying dimensions going to the NW, and they all have identical bearings, those being identical with the road plan in the 40's. If the road engineers did it in the 40's, that would have accounted for that, a common occurance, bearing to half a degree and distnace to whole feet.

Does it close any better if distance values are taken as slope instead of horizontal?

Nope, I'd have mentioned that. Flat ground.

I have three words for you. TESTIMONY, TESTIMONY, TESTIMONY.
Before you set a stake in the ground, you had better talk to the locals. If not, and you were in front of a judge, you would look pretty incompetent!