California Surveyors Forums

I've got a boundary survey in which the creating deed contains "double descriptions". The description starts out as a metes and bounds, for a portion of sectionalized land, however there is a qualifying statement at the end of the description that states "Said parcel is also shown as a portion of Parcel 56 of Map filed......". Well of course when surveyed the parcel is slightly shorter than on the 1957 map and thus the metes and bounds description extends beyond the parcel line. The descrption does not contain any "to" calls to the parcel lines that would provide definitive control.

Any thoughts on what would control?

Thanks

I would say (without being able to research it) it would be only that portion lying within parcel 56

I agree with Vance. It sounds like the qualifying call would be the boundaries of Lot 56 at the area of discrepency.

Sounds like you or title company need to spend some time to research the first cut deed on the subject property and the adjoiners.

Sounds like a description ripped off an Land Title Survey.

I've had clients who absolutely insist on a "meets (sic) description". I'll write one for a lot in a subdivision, but I always slap on the caveat that the "meets description is an accommodation and that the true description is the lot and block one.

My 2 cents worth...

I have done the same as Ian. However I word my caveat about the "M&B" description not being the true description quite strongly. Basically I state that the only reason I wrote it is so the fool who wanted it would pay the bill and that in reality it is worthless. I use nicer words, but that is the intent of the caveat.

SJ

When I've had to write M&B for a lot shown on the map, I call to the lot lines:
Beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot 2;
thence along the lot lines of said Lot 2 the following five courses:
...

How well do the m&b courses fit when the record dimensions of parcel 56 are used instead of the measured dimensions from your boundary survey?

GW,

How do the m&b courses fit when the record dimensions of parcel 56 are used instead of the measured dimensions from your boundary survey?

I'd use the measured dimensions. Following along the lot lines makes them superior; this is just how I convert / subvert their request for a m&b description.