LLA using different POB's

[dedkad]

I am reviewing a three-lot LLA that also includes an easement. Each lot and the easement all use a different POB in the legal description. These POB's are up to 1000' from each other. To me that seems to open the door to possible overlaps or gaps when traversing from different directions to a shared point or line. What are your thoughts?

[Edward M Reading]

I agree with you. It seems like a poor practice unless there is a compelling reason for the different POB's.

[Warren Smith]

Although poor practice, the use of different POBs can be rectified by proper qualifying phrases when describing common lines of the adjusted lots. Being compiled from record data, the descriptions will, of necessity, follow the parent parcel recitations. The resultant parcels have a paramount requirement of being retraceable.

[David Kendall]

Thanks Warren!! I find these early 'California style' (short and sweet kind of like the rolling stop at the stop sign for lack of a better term-It's early for me, I had a long night) deeds with what I perceive as a tendency towards minimal monument description are conducive to ambiguity in retracement. LLA from record data (which is how everyone tries to do it because it is cheaper) is commonly an adaptation of some ancient deeds with no physical monuments described (in my admittedly limited experience) from two different lots with deeds which may drafted by two different (likely deceased) surveyors. Wouldn't this always be the case?

Certainly the resultant descriptions will be less than ideal by today's (more eloquent *read sarcasm*) standards but what is the solution? Nobody wishes to resurvey the entire neighborhood or section in order to delete one simple line or two and add another so what choice is there in this instance? I'm also confused by Warren's use of the word 'necessarily' unless it is what I just described. I thought the common practice is to make the deed language as close to original as possible (including punctuation, usage, style and capitalization) for the purpose of future readers understanding the metadata.

Is the requirement of being 'retraceable' a realative or subjective term? I might argue that every deed is retraceable, the question is how much will it cost you to mark it on the ground? Even 'easily retraceable' is not well defined in my mind!

I'd love to write some super flowery legal descriptions and describe every pebble and brook I see to make it easier for the next joker that comes along but every time I try to 'flourish' my extraneous language gets left on the editing room floor. What does everyone else do with these?

[Warren Smith]

David,

Well, in order to compile from record data, of course, the framework will be the same. Retracement issues arise when existing parcels to be adjusted have been described at different times from different POBs. That's where careful crafting of the adjusted parcels (lots) comes into play - so that ambiguity is eliminated, or mitigated.

Adjacent existing parcels need to share common calls in the new descriptions such that, within the overall boundary, the new lots can be retraced as simultaneously created. That's what proper qualifying phrases are used to accomplish. They typically run along the lines of "... said point also being ..."

[E_Page]

When compiling from record (less than ideal, but it happens) and using different POBs for whatever reason, unless the records your working from depict some physical features to relate lines and corners to, that "... said point also being..." suggested by Warren may not help with the actual boundary location, but it will help if some knucklehead prone to create gaps and overlaps by strict adherence to dimensions realize that the parties did actually intend only one line at each location and not 2 or 3 so that they or their successors in interest could enjoy the opportunity to spend their retirement savings in needless litigation.

[dmi]

I do not think it is a matter of opinion, or whim, or whether to add flourishes or not. it is a matter of properly describing the intent of the parties. By properly describing the intent of the parties I mean that future surveyors will arrive at the same location,more or less, that was intended by the parties when placing the description on the ground. Flourishes that serve the purpose of clarifying potential conflicts, that clearly enforce the intentions of the parties are very much welcomed and needed. One the other hand flourishes for fashion's sake ought to be edited out before they are submitted for review. Every word should support the intentions of the parties, often more than not a bearing and distance is needed to meet this goal. Even though at the time of writing the description the beginning and ending of a particular course may well be well defined and easily recoverable, accurate line and curve data could become indispensable when monuments are lost.

[E_Page]

I never thought of what Warren and I each suggested as being a "flourish", but rather a descriptive phrase to remove all doubt of a particular intent.

Could you provide an example of a flourish added "for fashion's sake"? I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.

[Warren Smith]

My 1968 edition of Wattles' "Land Survey Descriptions" includes as essential features, the following:

201 Accuracy, recitals and ties, continuity, using these terms in their fullest meaning. Two listed elements are "Freedom from excess verbiage and redundancy" and "Brevity without uncertainty or ambiguity".

Wattles wrote from a title officer standpoint. He also spoke about freedom of conflict with descriptions of adjoining tracts and a definite showing of intent.

When I was studying this under Roy Minnick's tutelage, he stressed writing a description such that all that needed to be stated was stated, and no more.

Flourishes may have derived from the age of scriveners, who were paid by the word ...

[David Kendall]

I never thought of what Warren and I each suggested as being a "flourish", but rather a descriptive phrase to remove all doubt of a particular intent.

Could you provide an example of a flourish added "for fashion's sake"? I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.

http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.or ... 703#p40703

I had this post of Warren's in mind when I used the term this morning. I suppose I am referring to the practice which I developed in Texas (where there is not the luxury of a public record of survey so the deed must stand on it's own and be retraceable as it is likely all that will be in hand when the next surveyor is on the ground) of describing the actual found and set monuments at each corner explicitly and including reference ties to accessories when necessary (one employer liked WHENCE calls everywhere) on every call in addition to adjoiner calls. We also had much lengthier preambles which I suppose has more to do with the metes and bounds vs PLSS systems than political style points.

Every time I try to do something like that on a legal description since I started working in CA... well, I get some funny looks and the red pens come out...

[E_Page]

That's from an opinion written by an Appellate Justice. Sometimes they like to wax poetic to create the perception of profundity. But hey, it's their courtroom, so they can write as they like. My last post was actually a response to Dane's last post, but I guess your reference to "flowery language" fits my question as well. Describing "every pebble and brook" is neither necessary nor practical, but if something is a controlling element, I include it. And if I have detailed info, I include enough so that there's no confusion as to what marks or defines the point or line.

I'm of the opinion that a good description should be able to stand on its own if necessary, whether in CA, TX, or anywhere else. Some surveyors won't look anywhere outside of the deed language to determine where boundary lines are (or rather where they should be if the description described the parcel perfectly), so I believe the more info you can give to fully describe the controlling elements of the lines & corners, the better.

If I'm creating the description, I will describe any corner monuments in detail (i.e. ... to a 1" galvanized iron pipe with 2" brass cap marked 'LS 7275 - 2016'; thence..." If a line is intended to be coincident with, or have some specific spatial relationship to a senior line or existing physical feature, I'll describe that as well. Likewise, if there are monuments, corners or lines shown on or described in previous records, I'll call out "... as shown on the map filed in Book XX of Surveys at Page YY...." If I've accepted the lines, corners and/or evidence of a previous survey and I've determined a particular spatial relationship between that info an the intended boundary I'm describing, I want to provide that info for those who won't use info from a filed map to help interpret a deed description. I have not, that I recall, ever described swing ties or other witness points to corners unless the corner point itself could not be monumented directly.

All too often, descriptions give future surveyors nothing to work with beyond dimensions. Often it is a lawyer, paralegal or title officer who strips out all of the actual descriptive language to leave only the dimensions and some designation of the POB, but not always. I've found that a great many surveyors in this state lack good training on how to write a proper description. It's as if they've learned to just provide what title officers or engineers have accepted from them or directed them on what to include and exclude. In each of the few years I helped grade the LS exam, I always found it surprising and disappointing that it seemed that whether the description problem was one of writing a description or one of interpreting a description, it seemed like less than 30% of the examinees got at least 30% of the possible points. Even if a degree or other specific educational requirement never materializes in this state, I'd like to see all applicants required to take a 40 hour course in descriptions prior to being approved to take the LS exam.

[dmi]

ok I have no idea why you are acting like I am attacking anyone, you Mr page or Warren or David Kindell. Mr Kindell mentioned the term "flourish". As far as I know there is no industry standard definition for what is or is not a flourish.. Often in San Francisco, the ;preamble will read " A parcel of land situate in the City and County of San Francisco described as follows". You will see this preamble even in brand new legal descriptions written yesterday. I prepared a lot line adjustment that was a lot merger of lands owned by the same party. We do not have separate lot merger ordinance in SF. In this particular casein the preamble I referred to the legal descriptions with recording data for the parent parcels and in the body I called to and along the lines as described in the parent parcel deeds. The city checker asked me to remove the controlling calls and stupidly I complied. In their mind the controlling calls were just flourish and unnecessary. The title company further helped by re writing the preamble to be much more efficient and remove all the unnecessary verbiage, located in the City and County of San Francisco is all that is ever needed in their mind. The next one i did i refused to remove necessary controlling calls and magically the title company left my preamble alone. I agree that being brief and concise is useful but one has to keep in mind what the job is in the first place. No one should be brief for the sake of brevity alone,

[dedkad]

Some amount of flourish is good if it can aid in re-establishing a line in the future. If the flourish contains conflicting controlling calls, though, that's when problems occur, such as "said point being B&D from monument X and also being B&D from monument Y"

[E_Page]

Settle down Dane. No one accused you of attacking anyone. I was simply asking for clarification of what you meant by "flourish" because I honestly don't know what you mean.

I agree with your conclusion comment in your last post. Brevity is to be pursued only so far as it does not interfere with the clear description of controlling elements.