Easement Description

VANCE · Post by **VANCE** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:06 pm

I got comments back and I wanted to see what you all thought of them. I prefer my description over the red lines, but I wanted to get another opinion.

I do not like to use the word "contiguous" because of the different meanings.

Thanks in advance

Vance

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:30 pm

I tend not to say what the description is for in the actual discription, so I would agree with the marks that remove the reference to utility easement. I usually leave the type of document it is to be determined in the first page legal stuff.

For myself, I would say that first sentance after the preamble like this...

A 10.00-foot wide strip of land, the southerly and southeasterly line of said strip being described as follows:

The sideline statement would be (for me)...

The northerly and northwesterly line of said strip shall be prolonged...etc.

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:32 pm

On the exhibit, I would also make the easement line heavier than everything else. Just my opinion, of course. I hope it helps.

VANCE · Post by **VANCE** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:41 pm

I agree with that.

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:58 pm

My comments are my personal preference, and I believe what you have is not incorrect and the limits can be determined from your description the way it is written.

VANCE · Post by **VANCE** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:58 pm

What do you think of the usage of the word "contiguous" in a legal description?

Acceptable or Unacceptable.

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:06 pm

I do not use that word. I would definitely not use that word in your legal.

From Definitions of Surveying and Associated Terms - ACSM/ASCE 1978
Varies in meaning from close in proximity to near, though not in contact to, touching, or bounded, or traversed by.

From Blacks Law Dictionary
1. Touching at a point or along a boundary; ADJOINING
2. Near in time or sequence; successive

pls7809 · Post by **pls7809** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:09 pm

Wattles 3.6 - "...contiguous is not the most desirable word to use because of the contradictory definitions..."

I agree with that.

VANCE · Post by **VANCE** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:33 pm

Thanks that's what I was looking for.

Dave Sigman · Post by **Dave Sigman** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:51 pm

We use "adjacent to and contiguous with" in our SMUD right of way descriptions. Not something I came up with but something SMUD has used for the last 60+ years.

One small comment: I wouldn't refer to the corner and the 1/2" iron pipe as being one and the same. I'd say "Beginning ath the most easterly corner of said lands, said corner being marked by a 1/2" iron pipe"

We do a lot of right of way and easement descriptions at SMUD and in this case we would say: "A strip of land 10.00 feet in width, the southerly and southwesterly line of which is described as follows:" It avoids the adjacent to and contiguous with confusion.

For what it's worth, SMUD has never used the statement concerning lengthening and shortening the sidelines. The thinking here is that it's implied.

Lee Hixson · Post by **Lee Hixson** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:43 am

I prefer "coincident."

As defined by Wattles: "applies to two identical boundaries or lines."

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:36 pm

If it's an either/or decision, I'd go with the redmarks. The "uniform width" language takes out any ambiguity of interpreting whether the 10.00 feet is measured perpendicular to the described lines. If the line is parllel with, then the strip is going to be contiguous, either way is fine.

You are describing a strip of land which will be used as an easement, so I tend to go with "strip".

But most of all, neither is terribly wrong and if this requires approval from whoever is doing the review, just go with it so as not to hold up your client's project.

California Surveyors Forums

Easement Description

Easement Description

Legal Description