Metes and bounds for BLA

[MikeTurnrose]

I'm going to be writing a metes and bounds description for a boundary line agreement that was previously recorded. I have surveyed and monumented the new line in accordance with the agreement. The recorded agreement contained a minimal amount of specific dimensions. It was to be along the top of existing wall and then run between two existing structures, etc. I believe I have located the new line to the best of my ability as per the agreement. Both land owners were present when we marked the line on the ground.

I have a very good idea of how I'm going to write the thing, but I was wondering how it would be incorporated with future conveyance descriptions.

My client owns Lot 21 as shown on X Sub. map excepting therefrom the right of way of an existing road. I was thinking future conveyances might read "Lot 21 excepting therefrom said right of way SUBJECT TO that boundary line agreement recorded on xxx and being more particularly described as follows:

Insert new metes and bounds description.

Is that the standard way future conveyances would be written or is there another way? Can someone send me a sample of such?

Thanks.

Mike Turnrose

mikels7454@verizon.net

[7702]

Mike,

I'm curious as to why a boundary line agreement was recorded for a lot in a subdivision. Are there missing dimensions on the plat or some other factor that made the boundary location uncertain?

[MikeTurnrose]

There were two surveys done by both parties that had the line in two different locations. I didn't get called into this until 15 years after the surveys were done. The BLA was recorded in 2003. The owner is now following through with the requirements to monument the line and file an ROS.

In this subdivision, there are a lot of closure errors in the original map. It's a 100 year old map. The original mons. that are shown on the map are all gone. Only a few have been found by others. The original mons. were 4x4 posts. There are several surveys in the other that conflict with each other so that has created the "uncertainty".

[JBStahl]

Rather than using words such as "subject to" or "together with," I would suggest the subsequent conveyance would refer to the BLA by stating something such as: "the [east] boundary of the above described parcel being further defined by BLA [reference]".

The BLA does not "subject" or "augment" the record description and has no affect on title to the property. It merely provides additional information regarding the location of the particular boundary agreed upon by "reforming" the description to follow the agreed boundary.

JBS

[MikeTurnrose]

Thanks JB. I like that approach.