More or Less

[Mike Mueller]

This statement is ofttimes used extraneously. In one description it followed every course and when the matter was taken to court, the judge knocked out all of the statements of "more or less." The theory expressed was that inasmuch as they were used throughout, they carried no meaning whatsoever.

Good thing its only on the area then. That way the judge would know it was the lowest in priority in the minds of the scrivenor, and original grantor in case there was ever any issues of ambiguity.

"Anything else is "more or less", ah, how much more or less? Completely meaningless without quantification. Pure donk. The most common counter I hear is "the area is not controlling and if I state 'more or less' readers will understand". I do not buy it."

Seems like we have the basis for creating a test that will give us some concrete evidence. I do not know how to start a poll, but will try to get one going if I can figure it out. That would cover the surveyor side of the audience.

If we asked 100 non-surveyors what they thought "more or less" meant on the areas, I would predict that over %70 would say it meant that the area was not exactly what the number written was. Anyone have a good idea for creating a poll like that? Facebook group or some such?

Generally, these have been Benson Bullseye issues, except chute 6. We have plenty of that to go around locally.

As an aside, every time you say "Benson Bullseye" I find myself saddened that someone I respect for being as educated and knowledgeable as yourself would use what is effectively an ad hominem attack in a discussion. I guess its technically an ad locum attack, but it is the same thing, IE a trick used when the substance of your side of a discussion is lacking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

"The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," (more or less is useful on area) to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic (happens to live in the Bay Area), and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong - without ever addressing the point of the debate. Many contemporary politicians routinely use ad hominem attacks, which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent. "(Benson Bullseye)

We went through the evidence for your assertion that the Bay Area is a center of horrible surveying in another thread and all your predictions fell short. But even if it was correct, are you using the term to try and convince those living in the Bay Area to change? Or to try and characterize a set of supposed practices you can use as a bad example? What is the positive outcome that is produced by using a phrase like that?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

...

Generally, these have been Benson Bullseye issues, except chute 6. We have plenty of that to go around locally.

...
We went through the evidence for your assertion that the Bay Area is a center of horrible surveying in another thread and all your predictions fell short.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

Just because you wrote it doesn't mean it is evidence to the contrary. As I explained in the same thread, the Benson Bullseye is a theory to explain something that is unexplainable. Sweet tea and porch talk, may be proven otherwise. Just not by you, yet. The door is still open.

I can understand why you, residing near the center of the Bullseye, would see it as an ad hominem attack - which I am not above in a given instance. However, when I write about practices that land surveyors outside of the Bullseye could not imagine - practices I have seen with my own eyes - it adds credibility as the geographic location is a real place and not an abstract hypothetical that would appear unimaginable, widespread and not a weird one off. Less traveled, regular law abiding folks, unfamiliar with the Bullseye regional practices, would be unlikely to believe they exist, hyperbole. If someone wanted to check the veracity of the claims they could visit the bridge, Alcatraz and detour to see the private records or stop in to visit the locals. Like you, they are generally friendly and willingly 'splain their practices. I consider most of the Bullseye professionals I know as friends and quite likable.

Many examples of, er, non-standard practices are repeatedly and uniformly defended by private land surveying folks in the Bullseye i.e. "more or less" (rather than acknowledge it is written in the Good Book and the misuse is defended with vigor), together with the private survey records attributed to a single sentence in a 1968 newsletter, "record boundaries" (we have this problem locally, maybe less pervasive), CYA notes, stand against setting monuments, no regulations, no standards, and the list goes on for our land surveying Appalachia.

I do not readily recall anyone south of Bakersfield arguing or defending, ah, shall we say, "non-textbook"(?) or simply "wildcat surveying"(?) - I will gladly accept you picking something you find more palatable. I cannot simply say "NorCal" because I recognize the textbook practices in Humboldt and most other regions outside of the Benson Bullseye proper. Haven't you ever wondered why the locally accepted practice is at odds with the laws and textbooks? Rhetorical question.

Again, we have some issues locally, but the County Surveyor's offices, Caltrans, City Surveyors etc from Ventura County south are generally uniform in their textbook practices and have collaborated with local private land surveyors to provide a standard of practice that includes filing maps that show monuments (plural), boundary establishment notes, that conform to the laws, etc.

I do not intend to disparage you in particular or others, generally. I no longer have ambitions to see it changed. Most days I am grateful for the discussion to pass the time.

"I said no offense" Ricky Bobby

DWoolley

[hellsangle]

Mr. Wooley . . .

I see the light! I've been saved! (

( . . . but when apropos - will still use "more or less".)

Thank you for the debate!

Respectfully,

Crazy Phil

[LS_8750]

Mr. Warren Smith's discussion above basically sums up what I have seen and used in my practice.

When you think about it, setting aside good and evil, just about everything else is more or less.

On the other hand, I have seen the "more or less" thing over used, which resulted in uncertainty.

[E_Page]

I wish descriptions were that consistent. Wayyy too often, I see what most might call a metes & bounds description where actually it is a metes without bounds description. That is all the dimensions to describe a geometric figure with no calls to any objects or features which may have been intended to define the true boundary.

The issue of whether or not to include "more or less" is a non-issue, IMO. The case law that area is the least reliable of all deed info is so well defined the inclusion or omission of "more or less" has virtually no effect on the surveyor's liability or as an indicator of the quality of the underlying survey.

Better practice is to know the statistical certainty of your measurements and how that compounds into the area computation for the parcel, then round your area reporting accordingly. Depending upon the quality of your measurements and the size of the parcel, it may be most appropriate to round to the nearest 10, 100, or even 1000 s.f. Only on very small parcels would I round to the nearest 1 s.f. Particularly if you are using GPS in a manner that most surveyors seem to do now, the quality of your measurements is very likely less than the quality that was attained with total stations 20 years ago, and depending upon site and atmospheric conditions, less than or no better than what a careful crew using a theodolite and steel tape would regularly achieve 40 years ago.

[CBarrett]

I'm surprised to learn that a practitioner is balking at a suggestion that would decrease his liability exposure. I routinely append "more or less" to stated areas, and hope that no reviewer asks me to remove it.

Maybe say "Areas shown hereon are based on measurements (numbers?) shown hereron is xx.xxx acres."
If that is your concern.

When I see more or less statement That is not what I understand it to be. I read "there is a high degree of dimensional uncertainty in my measurements."

If I say thence 136.78 (more or less) feet to the east line of Brown's deed, I am indicating that there is high uncertainty in dimensional accuracy in that line. I don't put more or less on every single dimension.

[Jim Frame]

Maybe say "Areas shown hereon are based on measurements (numbers?) shown hereron is xx.xxx acres."
If that is your concern.

Maybe not. "More or less" works fine for me, thanks.

[CBarrett]

It will be interesting to see if "more or less" ever gets tested in court.

In the meantime, I see no need to cast aspersions to the accuracy of my own work. We are supposed to be competent to quantify it's accuracy. I dont see how adding a phrase more or less absolves us from that or offers any protection from legal description misinterpretations.

Areas we declare are derived from our own numbers so if we used correct math, there is no more or less. Reason we add areas is as a courtesy to those who dont have calculators able to do this handy. We're not ball parking or planimetering.

Why not just put more or less on every measurement we do, so lay people know we are dealing with error theory, reducing slope distances to horizontal and dealing with grid to ground conversions at times.

Why are drawing the line at areas, and why are we not more explanatory. More or less statement carrues a lot of ambiguity. Seems like anthitesis of what should go in a legal description.

It can be interpreted as "I half-assed my area calc and dont feel like doing it again"
Then if the legal is submitted for checking, we offer calcs showing the area and 0.02' error of closure.
Non sequitur

[DWoolley]

....
Example description: " blah blah blah to a concrete monument with bronze disk stamped . . . thence blah blah blah, MORE OR LESS(!!!) to a concrete monument with bronze disk" . . . and so on. The "more or less" shows the layperson/attorney/etc. - intent.

What's the harm in "more or less"? ...

According to Wattles, Section 3.12:

"More or Less

This statement is ofttimes used extraneously. In one description it followed every course and when the matter was taken to court, the judge knocked out all of the statements of "more or less." The theory expressed was that inasmuch as they were used throughout, they carried no meaning whatsoever.

When a course ties to a matter which is on record, or ties to a monument, the tie will hold regardless and so it is unnecessary to say "more or less." Also, when this statement "more or less" is put in the last course when going to the point of beginning, it has no value because the call is mandatory to go to the point of beginning regardless of the bearing and/or distance. If a course recites, "thence to the northwest corner of Forbes' land," the surveyor must first establish that northwest corner and then measure to it and report whatever the bearing and distance is. Here again, there is no reason to use "more or less.""

[Emphasis mine]

Clear, concise and without ambiguity. There is nothing for me to add to Wattles.

I do not need to look, there is no book that states otherwise.

DWoolley

Wattles says the preposition "to" means the same as "more or less". Bearing, distances etc. are qualifiers for whatever follows the word "to" - again, according to Wattles.

Wattles was intended to be the 6th book in the Old Testament- sandwiched between Deuteronomy and Joshua, apparently, there was an argument and it was decided to be on the third tablet delivered by Moses. Moses dropped the ball, it is believed that somewhere on Mt. Sinai the Wattles tablet rests.

Until someone more qualified writes a book stating the contrary, who am I to question Wattles? Wattles' publications are one of the few standards we have in our industry - this is why we cannot have nice things, like standards. I shall follow.

DWoolley

[scarpa]

I believe Wattle's tablet rests on Mount Diablo although others would argue for Mount San Bernardino.
Cheers!

[PLS7393]

I believe Wattle's tablet rests on Mount Diablo although others would argue for Mount San Bernardino.
Cheers!

Which Initial Point would you reference at Mt. Diablo? Would that exercise a "More or Less" clause ? ? ?
Hold that thought as I go get another bag of popcorn with butter please ! ! !

I'm following the footsteps of the original surveyor, and in my 35 +/- (more or less) years of surveying and attending legal description seminars, "More or Less" has always been a part of the area clause in a description. I have examples from the private sector, CALTRANS, Cities, and Counties, so why beat a dead (more or less) horse? Just saying peoples, and I have no issue here. If you got time to beat this up, go for it, but I'm heading out to make money while you spin your wheels!

v

v

v

LOL ! ! !