Proper Way to Reference a Deed or Recorded Map

[Lee Hixson]

In most of the Counties where I've worked the convention is that when you are referencing either a deed or a recorded map that has multiple pages, it is proper (and sufficient) to give the Book, then only the 1st page.

Thus: Bk. 25, Pg. 88

It is assumed that when you do so you are, by definition, including all the pages/sheets involved.

Is this just convention? Or is there anything in any of our laws/regulations that specifically discusses the matter?

[pls7809]

It's convention for sure. From all the legals I've written and checked I've always seen deeds with multiple pages only refered as ...Book XX, Page XX of Official Records.... For maps I have always seen ...Book XX, Pages XX through XX, inclusive, of Maps...

I would be very surprised if there was a law that regulated this. Maybe some agency standard might require it, but I seriously doubt it is in the law.

[D Ryan]

Lee,

It's highly unlikely you will find a law that addresses such a practice. I think it's a matter of convention and good communication. When citing a map that has 15 pages for instance, let's say Bk 25, Pg 88 through 102, and the majority of your survey pertains to Pg 91 (sheet 4), it would probably be minimally correct to just cite it as Bk 25, PG 88, but it would be more helpful to note that it's a 15 page map, and further to reference the specific applicable sheet. This would prevent problems and inconvenience for the next person when trying to order up the map. You know what you're getting in advance. If it's only a couple sheets, I probably wouldn't worry about citing a specific sheet, but in those cases of a large number of sheets, a little hand holding for the next guy doesn't hurt.

FYI-Wattles appears to favor only citing the first page. Minnick appears to favor citing all sheets.

Dave Ryan

[Lee Hixson]

Dave...

I understand where you're coming from, but the trouble with decisions that lean in the "hand holding" direction is that they very often end up destroying a good practice.

There's a ton of 'em when it comes to writing legal descriptions. I once had a run-in with a City Engineer over my use of "said" in a metes & bounds description. Taking the "hand holding" position, he forced me to remove all my "said" references (e.g., "thence, along said line...") and regurgitate the same line, the same map number, the same lot number, etc., each and every time. Why? "Because that way there's no confusion over the matter," he said.

This same engineer would not allow you to submit a description that said, "Lot 27, plus the west 10 feet of Lot 28." One of the cleanest, most defensible descriptions that ever came down the legal highway. No...to h*ll with tradition..."I won't accept anything other than a metes and bounds description, period."

We assume that--unless you state otherwise--a curve is tangent. We assume that a line is straight. We assume that Bk. 23, Pg. 38 means the entire document that got filed/recorded in that book, at that page number. Etc., etc.

The more we ignore all the precedents that have been established over the decades, the worse it will get. Descriptions get longer and longer, gaining nothing in the process. In fact, they needlessly clutter up the record for eons to come.

"Brevity without uncertainty or ambiguity." Wattles.

(Sorry for the rant.)

[D Ryan]

Lee,

Yeah, I hear you. Some of those things asked for just fly in the face of good, established practice. Flexibility is a good thing, but not to the point of having 15 thousand ways of doing something.

Dave

[7702]

I think I would have told said Engineer what he could do with said comments.

[Lee Hixson]

Mark...

I was only a couple of years into my license at that point, and he was older and had more engineering years under his belt, so I caved.

[Lee Hixson]

A title officer that I know kindly replied to an email that I sent to him about this issue. He gave me a list of cases that he says documents the practice of noting only the first page:

Central Pacific Railroad v Beal (1873) 47 C 151

De Sepulveda v Baugh (1887) 74 C 468

Saunders v Schmaelzle (1874) 49 C 59

Widney v Southern Pacific (1932) 12 CA 291

15 Cal Jur 2d, Deeds § 164

I don't subscribe to WestLaw. Is there anyone on the forum that does? Or that can tell me how to download these cases so I can read them myself?

[PLS7393]

Lee,
When citing a docuement, only the first page is needed, because the first page has the recording information, and all subsequent pages are included. When dealing with a map, the first page will also include the info "Page 1 of XXX".

Yes it may be helpful to address which page the info is shown on "as shown on Page 37 of 94". If you don't cite the first page, the recording information is not correct.

[dmi]

For myself, I do not worry about these types of things. I reference the document with book and page and if a local agengy wants to include more info, I happily add that as well.

[7702]

I've never had a problem with the recording references because I always include all the pages of the documents. The important thing is that the document is referenced in some fashion.

As far as the Engineer's requirement of Lee to modify the legal description, I still think that was a bit ridiculous.

[cals6406]

Only requires you to register to view cases.

[Lee Hixson]

Only requires you to register to view cases.

I just looked all over that site and I don't see any way to search court cases. Have you done it? How do you do it?

[goodgps]

Lee,
You have it correctly.

If a clown can't realize that a document consists of multiple pages, well then we must review our liscensing and schooling policies.

"loaf of bread" (slices 1-24)

"can of Soda" (ounces 1-16)

I need a tequila . . . . Shots (1-4)

oops! kitchen floor (tiles 1-244)

It is, however, helpful to indicate which page of a huge multiple page document your working with.
Such as found (distance) as per Book "a" of railroad deeds, page 25, as shown on page 4356. Filed February 31st, 1897.
Especially if the document has a bunch of pages.