Written Legal Description and Plat

[Rich Fultz]

It has been my experience that Legal Descriptions by today's standard have a Plat following the written description. I know that has not always been the standard in the past. We see many written Legal Descriptions from the past without the Plat. I have also noticed that many these Plats contain a considerable amount of information, sometimes extraneous information. My intention of this post is not to start a debate over Plat or no Plat. I certainly believe it is beneficial to have a Plat for an "at a glance" review to determine the general location. My concern is where this trend might be heading. I recently received a request to allow a Plat without a written Legal Description. This was for a License Agreement (LA) for another agency crossing our right-of-way. My initial reaction was not to allow it; however, I found that our District has been allowing this for LA prior to my joining the District. Is there a statutory requirement that would prevent this potential trend of no written Legal Description from expanding to other documents such as easements or even a fee title transfer to or from a government agency?

[LS9200]

I have gone down a similar road with licenses. Since they are normally revokable, lower risk and don't covey permanent rights I haven't found anything that would require a legal description. In some cases i think they do need it, but getting others behind that is hard.

For easements and Grant deeds it is a little different.
Civil Code - CIV § 1624 (contracts)
(3) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein; such an agreement, if made by an agent of the party sought to be charged, is invalid, unless the authority of the agent is in writing, subscribed by the party sought to be charged
-My interpretation here is that it needs to be in WRITING, I hope common sense prevails in that writing is the most clear way to do this, and that it has enough detail to identify the property (infer legal description)

CIV § 1091
An estate in real property, other than an estate at will or for a term not exceeding one year, can be transferred only by operation of law, or by an instrument in writing, subscribed by the party disposing of the same, or by his agent thereunto authorized by writing.
- again i interpret instrument in writing as a legal description

CIV § 1092 (Grant deeds)
A grant of an estate in real property may be made in substance as follows:
“I, A B, grant to C D all that real property situated in (insert name of county) County, State of California, bounded (or described) as follows: (here insert property description, or if the land sought to be conveyed has a descriptive name, it may be described by the name, as for instance, ‘The Norris Ranch.’)
Witness my hand this (insert day) day of (insert month), 20___.
- Seam pretty clear, do it like this and it is valid - do it another way and it better be clear (best way is a legal description)

[DWoolley]

Under California law, the Statute of Frauds requires all land title documents to be in writing. Civil Code § 1624(a)(3) states: “An agreement for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein, is invalid unless the same, or some note or memorandum thereof, is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by the party’s agent.” The law does not specifically exclude sketches, and in theory, a sketch that is properly attached and referenced could satisfy the requirement of being “in writing” - there are court cases that restate similarly. Generally, absent any ordnance or policy, plats are not required to accompany legal descriptions - although I see plats with everything except some Caltrans documents.

In practice, however, sketches/plats are not used and should not be relied upon. The first reason is that title companies will not insure property described only by a sketch/plat, because there is no formal legal description or designation. For example, if land shown on a plat were later resubdivided, what would “Exhibit B” mean as a description? Without a precise lot and tract reference, metes and bounds, or acceptable title designation that references a recorded title document, the description is essentially meaningless for ownership and insurance purposes. Also, DONK reminder, do not forget that in California it is not legally acceptable to use coordinates to describe property - it is specifically prohibited in the California Public Resource Code.

The second reason is that county recorders, if performing their duties properly, will reject such documents. Government Code § 27201(a) provides that a recorder shall not accept for recording any instrument unless it is authorized by law and in compliance with statutory requirements. Although many recorders might explain rejection with a simple “we’ve never accepted that,” the reasoning is sound, as ambiguous descriptions undermine the chain of title. Recorders also operate under ordinances and policies that prohibit recording documents with inadequate descriptions. For example, the Los Angeles County Recorder explicitly requires that deeds contain a sufficient legal description—either by lot and tract or metes and bounds—and include an Assessor’s Parcel Number. Hand-drawn or CAD sketches/plats alone are not accepted unless tied to a recorded plat or survey. I read "tied to" as being a lot or parcel in a filed map - not tied to in a mathematical land surveying sense. There is no more clear example than the Lot Line Adjustments - why are land surveyors required to write the description when the plat makes it clear as to Lot 1 and Lot 2 locations?

If Hernando de Soto, author of The Mystery of Capitalism, is correct, then the entire financial system in the United States is anchored in the secure land title system. His central argument is that capital formation and credit markets rely on clear, enforceable property rights. Without reliable land titles, the stability of the broader financial system is compromised. This is a book worth reading (not meant for you, James), because it demonstrates in plain terms how secure land titles are not just a legal technicality but the foundation of capitalism itself.

Land surveyors would do well to remember that deeds fall under contract law in the Civil Code, not just under the Professional Land Surveyors’ Act. Good descriptions should stand on their own and not require extrinsic evidence to establish either the title or the location. The entire purpose of a legal description is to be clear, concise, self-contained, and unambiguous.

In my practice, I review hundreds of legal descriptions annually. Overall, it is a complete sh*tshow. Just because you can write descriptions under Business and Professions Code § 8726 does not mean you should. The law demands clarity and competency, and both recorders and insurers (as should land surveyors) know and enforce that standard for a reason: to protect the integrity of the land title system. LS9200, I know it is not your side of the house, but I encourage you to take a peek under the hood there.

A portion of the litigation support I provide stems from plats or sketches presented without proper legal descriptions and/or insufficient detail. These documents are most often tied to HOA documents or CC&Rs (similar to lease agreements and licenses) where the drafting attorneys simply drew lines on a site plan, assessor’s parcel map, or neighborhood layout. Instead of metes and bounds or lot-and-tract descriptions for maintenance jurisdiction and/or a subsequent injury liability, these documents rely on nothing more than vicinity maps with street addresses, and parks—leaving disputes inevitable.

There is a 10 Minute Surveyor on this topic. Look for it to be released next week. Interesting timing.

DWoolley

[jamesh1467]

This forum is so much fun. I love getting called out specifically when I have not even been involved in the subject. Let me try to be actually helpful to the OP with some legal research, as was asked.

I had to go back a ways, but Breckinridge v. Crocker in 1889 comes close to a discussion of what we want. There was a dispute back in the day over buying half the town of Merced via Telegram. No real contract was formed except for over telegram, and it was unclear what people were buying. "balance of Merced town property" was the legal description and the contract was voided when the seller backed out. The buyer was trying to sue to get remedies. The case was dismissed without trial, and then it was appealed.

There were apparently two different maps. One unrecorded map with a bigger property called "Town of Merced" and one recorded map called "Official Map, Town of Merced, Merced County, Cal." with a smaller property. Wasn't clear which one was being bought and thats what decided the case. But a telegram is "writing"; there was some discussion about it in the opinion and how it met the statute of frauds. Whether or not that still holds with the current statute of frauds case litigation now is subject to opinion; I have no idea what is truly considered "writing" right now in current case law, and you would have to litigate it under current precedent. But this is the closest thing I found on this particular subject. But if no one on this forum knows the precedent that would modify this interpretation, I would assume its pretty unlikely that it exists. Or at least the subject has not come in front of the courts in a while.

It looks to us as if there might have been, and probably was, a misunderstanding as to what was the subject-matter of the proposed purchase and sale. Certainly, the-contract was left uncertain in this particular, and being so, must be regarded as only inchoate.

We therefore advise that the judgment be affirmed.

It should be noted though, that there was a dissent and one of the judges wanted to send it to trial to determine the specifics reguarding the terms of the sale.

Whether there was any'well-known and clearly defined tract of land answering to those terms of description was a question depending—as in all such cases it must more or less depend—on evidence aliunde.

.. The evidence introduced on the. part of the plaintiff-*539in this case certainly tended to show that there was a well-defined tract of land known as the town of Merced. It is true that there was some testimony tending to show that the name was applied to two different surveys, a smaller one, and a larger one including the smaller. But this was not ground for a nonsuit, which is proper only where there is a total failure of proof on some material issue.

Getting a case source was a pain to find because its so old, but I found one here. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5 ... v-crocker/

Basically, my understanding/interpretation, especially after reading Breckinridge v. Crocker, is that much like any other thing under contract law, you are welcome to make the terms of the contract whatever you want. The sale of property is just the terms of the contract. Those terms just have to be written somehow into the contract to meet the statute of frauds. (even if it is just a telegram) A plat is "writing" and the court made it pretty clear that the statute of frauds was met for the "written" component, but the telegram component or the distance component from each other to know what the clear terms were was the problem. Or it was pretty clear the two parties were not in a room looking at the same survey to have made any kind of clear contract to know the terms. That's what decided the case. Otherwise, the dissent made it clear that everything becomes a typical contract case where the parties dispute everything and fight it out in court if there is a possibility to review the terms. My guess is that if one of the maps was quoted in the telegram, the appeal would have lost, and it would have gone to trial to get into more specifics. Either way, its still a CA Supreme Court precedent. It was quoted as the underlying precedent in a 2008 CA Supreme Court case as well, so its likely still valid. I just don't know how much it has been modified over the years. Or how many offshoots there could be.

The quote/rule this case made is below, and it was used as precedent in other 1950s cases that led me to find this case. That last requirement at the end is the one you care about.

In order to take a contract for the sale of land out of the statute of frauds, it is not necessary that there be a formal contract, drawn up with technical exactness. A memorandum of the agreement is sufficient, and it may *535be found in one or more papers, some or all of which may be telegrams. But the memorandum must contain-all the material elements of the contract; that is, it must show who is the seller and who is the buyer, what the price is and when it is to be paid, and must so describe the land that it can be identified

I'm not going to touch on the recorder stuff. Yes, you probably have an issue there and things you need to follow to get things done in practice. But is it a real legal issue, or is it a "rules" issue that the recorder has just made up a quasi-regulation outside of the statute based on their own potentially incorrect interpretation of the law that would be overturned by the courts if you challenged it? But again, that is the value proposition of a suveyor. We know the ins and outs to make your transaction run smoothly without going to the courts to prove your point. Knowing the rules of the recorder in your jurisdiction is a factor in that. But that doesn't mean it applies to every jurisdiction.

All the other bullshit is Dave's opinion. Or its something a few people do, and there's no hard and fast rule that it would hold for your specific issues. Hear it or don't. Some of it I agree with, some I don't. Not exactly sure what his obsession with books is. There are better media for information transfer now, and books are just some guy or gal's opinion on a subject. Typically, making me read hours of bullshit to make 3 or 4 main points. That's why i get annoyed when people constantly tell me I need to "learn" something. Get to the point.

I do think this is something that is pretty much open-ended and either way is correct. Especially as technology gets better. Leases etc. Low risk. Cheap, where it is unlikely to be disputed. Go for it. I have done it. Again the law is really all about money. If there's not a lot of money at stake, no big deal.

I like LS9200's answer in that regard. Its pretty much the right answer without getting into the legal research that I did here. Also, his quote of Civil Code 1092 is a new code. Its from 1999. So you could take it to court and make a new precedent with it. However, you have to pay for that, and until someone does pay for it and takes it all the way to the CA Supreme Court to overturn this old precedent, I'm fairly certain the old precedent I quoted here still holds in the lower courts regarding the absence of real requirements. Civil Code 1091 was in place with this Breckinridge v. Crocker case and was effective in 1872, so it wouldn't conflict with a Breckinridge v. Crocker interpretation. The Statute of Frauds statute changes constantly over time and is not at all the same as it was in 1889, but the general form has been in place for a while and is pretty established, so you wouldn't likely be able to challenge that code for the Breckinridge v. Crocker interpretation.

I am pretty sure the legal answer to the OP question is essentially "no," but its a bad idea not to include a legal description where it matters because that is how it has always been done, and when you try to be the rebel, your intentions about what you are conveying are often misinterpreted. The goal for a deed, legal description or plat is clarity in the conveyance, at least in my opinion. That means following historical practices as much as possible and integrating them in with new technology. Plus, that is so reinforced that there is now a statute in Civil Code 1092 that would support you forcing a legal description if you really wanted to force it. Or, in other words, you could claim you are following the intentions of the legislature to overturn the previous ambiguity in this discussion by the courts of what should and should not be in a conveyance for the "must so describe the land that it can be identified" Breckinridge v. Crocke requires by forcing a legal description with every plat that you review, quoting 1092. But you would not yet be supported in case law, only statute law, for your own interpretation of statute.

I will say that I have had issues where the plat and the legal conflict for the same description. Personally, I would trust the plat nowadays with CAD if I had to choose one or the other. Because if it is really overseen by a PLS the legal and plat will match and there won't be problems, but if people are being cheap and the PLS is only saying they reviewed it and its not really being reviewed by a PLS (which happens a lot), the unlicensed will get the CAD right and won't know how to make the legal correct. So if I had to choose one or the other, I would choose the plat. That is the direction things are going. Every issue is different, though.

Also, I do like extraneous information. I understand the issues with it and the potential for conflicts. But I would prefer more information about someone's intentions to convey in 50 years than less information. Again, that's opinion though. But, I have had more issues where its harder to understand what was going on due to a lack of information in a conveyance rather than too much information that I cannot decipher to understand the intentions of the conveyance.

[D Ryan]

Rich Fultz asked about a statutory requirement preventing using only a plat. Then the discussion got into whether a description must be in writing. That assumes a plat is not a written instrument. That’s a fair perspective, but I’d like to bring it back to the practical aspects the original question raises.

This is a good discussion because it really raises the question of what a sufficient description is. I’d take a well-done plat over a crappy description. Or a good description over a crappy plat. I’ve always enjoyed the legal description aspect of surveying. It’s something you can take an entire class in or attend seminars throughout your career and continue to do a better job with. Aren’t boundary control classes, case study seminars, and boundary disputes often about ambiguous descriptions? Why do we have the rules of construction and spend so much time going over them and debating them? More often than not, it’s due to ambiguous descriptions where intent wasn’t made clear.

If your written description contains the proper qualifiers when going along an existing boundary and has clear intent throughout, the reader isn’t left wondering what was really intended. A plat can, and should, contain the same traits. I’ll take either one over something that’s clearly lacking. Using both is a good idea, but in that case, I prefer the more basic plat that simply shows the shape or basic configuration of the subject parcel. I put a disclaimer on my plats (page 2 of Exhibit A) that the information contained on the plat is secondary to the information contained on the description (page 1 of Exhibit A). To prevent conflict, one should limit the information on the plat. Take that potential ambiguity or conflict out of the hands of the reader when creating it, so someone down the road doesn’t need a class (or a court case) to infer your intent.

I once worked for an agency that regularly obtained easements or fee parcels for flood control projects. They did a Record of Survey for the project splitting all the “takings” up into parcels with a designation, Parcel A, Parcel B, etc. I’m sure we’ve all seen this. I did them later with a different County. I’ve seen surveyors do this for lot line adjustments. The legal description simply referred to the RS and the Parcel designation, the same way one cites a subdivision map via Lot/Block, etc. I can see the properly prepared plat sufficing as a description in the same manner. Just make sure it has the proper qualifiers and intent clearly identified. Avoid unnecessary information. Too much information with the idea you’re trying to improve the document potentially results in “multiple incompatibilities”.

I would say we can agree that something in writing is necessary, whether that’s a description or a plat (or both). But I think the courts and the codes were differentiating between written or verbal, not description or plat. A plat is not necessarily inferior- just the inferior ones.

Dave Ryan
Arcata, Ca.