What makes a good POB?

[Sunburned_Surveyor]

I've got a new article series starting in the Footsteps Boundary Surveying Newsletter. (The October 2013 Issue should be published this weekend.) The article series is about the modern metes and bounds land description package. In the second article for the series, which should be published around the first of November, I'll be talking about points of commencement and points of beginning.

I'd like to know what you guys think makes a good point of commencement and a good point of beginning. (I've got my own list, but I wanted to get some outside thoughts.)

If you also want to share what makes a horrible point of commencement and point of beginning, I'll take that information too. :]

Thanks for your thoughts.

Landon

[land butcher]

Forgive me for asking but what is the difference between a old and modern M&B.
BTW When writing a legal I avoid a M&B like the plaque.

[LS 4722]

They make pretty good fire starters for BBQ's

[dmi]

A good POB is one whose position is least likely to become uncertain over time. A good POB is one that is properly suited for its purpose.

[E_Page]

The starting point, whether the POB or a remote POC, in addition to what Dane said, should be easily identifiable, easily differentiated from other points or monuments in the vicinity (it does little good to commence at a 3/4" iron pipe if there are a few such pipes in the immediate vicinity of the point of commencement - sufficient detail in the description to uniquely identify the correct 3/4" iron pipe is required), easily locatable, and be a common point of control with other parcels in the immediate vicinity.

[Sunburned_Surveyor]

Thanks for the comments so far.

In my opinion, a modern metes and bounds is a package of documents that describe a parcel of real property to a high professional standard. This package includes a written land description, a graphical plat, and a closure report. It also includes important supporting documents, like deeds and maps referenced in the description.

In much of my work jurisdictions metes and bounds land descriptions are required, and I strongly encourage other surveyors to submit metes and bounds land description packages when they do work for my reclamation districts.

As a general rule, I find surveyors that don't want to provide me with a metes and bounds descriptions often haven't done a proper boundary resolution. In most cases, as the land surveyor responsible for right-of-way management and maintenance on reclamation districts, I need a description that I can easily put on the ground, today or in 20 years.

The controlling calls in a metes and bounds land description still "control" over the measurements...but the measurements provide very valuable information. Why leave them out unless you have a really good reason to?

Landon

[Robert Martin]

Landon,

I think I should point out that every situation is different, and what may be a "good" POB in one instance may be a "horrible" choice for a POB in another instance.

Conversely, I could see many of us saying that a "certain" POB would make a horrible POB in any M&B legal description, but on the very next M&B description, that same type of POB may be our best option.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that our professional judgment must come into play in every situation, because every situation is different. That's why we are licensed, a cookie cutter doesn't work for surveying...yet...

Good luck with your article, sounds like an interesting topic.

[LS_8750]

A monument.
Rather simplistic, but as we all know most older metes and bounds descriptions don't terminate at the POB, so we end up with misclosures that we need to resolve with additional calls to adjoiners, or other such monuments.
The worst metes and bounds description is one with no monuments, nor calls to adjoiners.
I would say water bodies and their shores make lousy POBs, since they may shift.

[Sunburned_Surveyor]

You both had excellent comments. I will make sure I mention both of your ideas in my article.

Landon

[7702]

When writing a legal I avoid a M&B like the plaque.

LB, your dentist must love you!

[E_Page]

The plat and closure report are good things to supply to an entity that needs them for review, and are something that should be in your own files, but often the parties who are receiving the description and placing it into a recorded document won't know what to do with either. In fact, you'd be lucky if they attach your signed & stamped description as an Exhibit A to the deed rather than retyping, and likely dropping some of the more descriptive elements (calls to specific monuments, calls to adjoiners or other controlling lines/features) in the process.

Your description, whether M&B or other form should be sufficiently descriptive to stand on its own as a basis for another to accurately locate the original boundaries. Anything that you have used to control the location of any particular line or point should be described so that it can be uniquely identified and used to control the re-establishment of the lines and/or points it controls.

I have, on a few occasions taken the time to carefully describe such features only to find later that the title company employee or paralegal who transcribed it to a deed thought that they knew better than I what information was important, leaving only bearings and distances and the bare minimum descriptive info needed to determine where the POB or POC is. Fortunately, it's been awhile since I've seen that happen.