Legal Description - Am I being too particular?

[JMS8070]

Hey folks!

I received some comments on my legal description from an agency and I would like to get your thoughts...on my thoughts.

There are several things requested that I have no issues with, even though I generally would not format my description in that way. For example, they want a hard return after each semicolon, no big deal, you got it; no file path in the footer, sure; take out PIPELINE from the header, done!

Here are a couple things that really bug me though:

First, "INCLUSIVE"...I hate adding that after "...PAGES 3 THROUGH 5..." It is redundant. Why must we add this to descriptions? Does anyone, including non land surveyors, not understand what "through" means? Please explain to me why this is necessary, or if it isn't, am I crazy for trying to fight it?

Second, "SUBJECT TO ALL COVENANTS, RIGHTS, RIGHTS OF WAYS, AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD, IF ANY." This bothers me for two reasons. First, I am preparing a description of land, I am not discussing rights. Rights are discussed in the document, not my description. Second, the land described is subject to a heck of a lot more than just those things listed. I swear one day I will add "...ALSO SUBJECT TO GRAVITY, THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE BILL OF RIGHTS, ULTRA-VIOLET RADIATION FROM THE SUN, AND SMOG." My solution to this note is to add it after my signature line under a heading of AGENCY REQUESTED NOTE. So far, agencies have accepted this solution, but I'm sure one day this won't work.

What do you folks think about this, am I just being too over the top? Really, does it matter? FYI - no comments whatsoever regarding the actual description of land...every bearing, distance, to call, strip width, was accepted.

One last thing, this easement is within a parcel of a parcel map. I have been asked to add to my preamble, "...ALSO BEING A PORTION OF SECTION #, TOWNSHIP # SOUTH, RANGE...ETC." That bothers me too. I think I will add that under my EXHIBIT "A" header rather than my preamble. Thoughts?

[pls7809]

I agree with you.

[Gary Schenk]

One last thing, this easement is within a parcel of a parcel map. I have been asked to add to my preamble, "...ALSO BEING A PORTION OF SECTION #, TOWNSHIP # SOUTH, RANGE...ETC." That bothers me too. I think I will add that under my EXHIBIT "A" header rather than my preamble. Thoughts?

The Lord God Wattles writes on page 11.3 of Writing Legal Descriptions that the simplest form of writing a description is, in the following order, Lot or Parcel, Block, Tract, City (if any), County, State, Map Book and Page, Public Office.

He mentions no need to reference Section, Township and Range. This fits in with His admonition for His acolytes to seek "concise clarity without ambiguity." It behooves us not to sin before His eyes, and so we should not include the Section information.

Scanning through our Lord God's writing, I can find no use of the word "inclusive", although His example captions consist of only one page.

I was taught by one of the High Priests of Wattles to use the word "inclusive" when referencing more than one page and have done so.

[dedkad]

I see the use of "inclusive" in a lot of CC&R's prepared by attorneys when referring to multiple sections of the CC&R's, but have never seen nor do I ever require it to be used when referring to the pages of a map. I agree that it does seem redundant. Not sure why the attorneys like it so much. I also agree with you about all the other things you said.

[E_Page]

I agree with you about the "SUBJECT TO..." phrase. IMO, that is a qualifier to the granting clause and should not be part of the description.

I don't see the "inclusive" notation or the recitation of Section, Twp, and Rge as being big deals. Neither are really necessary, but don't change the subject boundary at all. The inclusion of Sec, Twp, Rge may have more to do with aiding with their internal indexing system than a way of making the description more complete or correct (neither of which would be true, but it doesn't make it less correct either).

[Anthony Maffia]

The "subject to" phrase is archaic in the Bay Area, as I haven't seen it in a deed newly written in the past 50 years, and title companies seem to remove that language when they file a new deed. Perhaps the reviewer read that recently in another document and thought it was a good idea?

I always see "inclusive" when there is a page range, but I don't often use it.

[land butcher]

There are entirely too many people having the power to require corrections "they" deem required that have little knowledge of how to write a legal description or the difference between needing a metes and bounds for "A strip of land 5 feet in width it's easterly line being the easterly line of Parcel 3 PM ........."

[dmi]

Actually the term inclusive is not redundant. It is a clarifying and it makes sure that there is no confusion about a particular range of data. In our case we are typically referring to page ranges. I would agree that in general practice a call for a map is understood as a call for everything contained in that map ,be it one page or fifty pages and in that sense use of the term "inclusive" is not necessary. However,, when a description is being written, the term inclusive is short for "Yeah I mean all pages in the range, 1,2,3,4 qnd 5 and not just page 2-4" and thus could be considered necessary. it could also be used to express the intent to exclude other page ranges. . .

[Anthony Maffia]

Hmm

[E_Page]

Dane's right. A call for a map is a call for the entire contents of the full map. It is more specifically, with regard to boundary location, a call for the survey that the map is intended to depict. If the writer of the description wants only a specific portion of the map to be relevant, then the wording in the description needs to reflect that limitation.

However, if any apparent wiggle room is left in the wording, you can bet that if the opportunity arises to do so, some attorney is going to argue some alternate interpretation. That is, if something is relevant to the matter but detrimental to their client that appears on Sheet 3 of the map, then they may argue that "3 through 5" means "4 and only 4" because the qualifier "inclusive" is not there. It's a very weak argument, goes against practical and common convention, should be readily dismissed by any reasonable judge. But some lawyers are more convincing than others and not all judges are reasonable or have good judgment.

"Inclusive" is a clarification that should not be necessary, but does serve a purpose.

[RAM]

Section, T. & R., in my world there are no City's, no Tracts and Section/T/R helps guide the follower to where you are in the world. Also when within the caption, points the follower in the right direction and limits the area of consideration, (Wattles 3.2 as a reference.) The majority of descriptions I see are based on pre-1970 description, which do not contain any other reference, without the GLO call, it is very hard to determine where the land is.

In your case if within a defined geographical area, i.e. City limits, I can understand not including. It maybe just a preference. And why not, by including T/R/S, it narrows down the location within the entire State.

just my random 2 cents

[JMS8070]

Thank you all for your time to reply. As a follow up, the checker at the agency agreed with everything I stated above and told me that he is attempting to update the agency's requirements for legal descriptions. He accepted my legal as I had it and will use it as a reference once he is able to update the standards.

Thanks again everyone!

Marty

[Lee Hixson]

Well that's good news. Glad your persistence paid off.

[JMS8070]

Well that's good news. Glad your persistence paid off.

Not as much persistence as good checker. I believe he deserves most of the credit.