MorePosted By Michael Ward on 3/8/2010 at 7:04 PM
I just want to get opinions on something that I have found lately. How many of you will do a retracement of a platted lot and prepare a new legal description based on measured data? If you do this, do you always mention that it is measured data in the body of the legal or do you just call out monuments? The reason that I am asking is that I have seen many circumstances where the legal description enclosed in title is a metes and bounds that may or may not mention that the property is the same as Lot X of So and So subdivision. When you plot the metes and bounds, it does not, in fact, match the record plat and there are gaps and overlaps created based on the found monumentation used in preparing the legal description. While I understand that some clients insist on a measured legal, does this not cloud title when they use this legal as the vesting legal from that point forward? If you ever run across this situation and the caption says that it is Lot X of So and So subdivision, do you use the record plat data and show the measured data that you obtained or do you show the record title data and no plat data? To me, if the plat is referenced in the caption, then the plat is King and all references that vary should be shown based on plat data and not what some other surveyor went out and measured and wrote a measured description from. In my opinion, we should only use the plat as record data and then show our measured for the particular job. However this can usually cause problems when a title attorney looks at the job. I hope that what I have asked makes sense and appreciate all the feedback from everyone on this matter.
To read the rest of this thread go to www.i-boards.com/bnp/pob/messages.asp?MsgID=1543935&ThreadID=145499&IsResponse=False#1543935.
I just want to get opinions on something that I have found lately. How many of you will do a retracement of a platted lot and prepare a new legal description based on measured data? If you do this, do you always mention that it is measured data in the body of the legal or do you just call out monuments? The reason that I am asking is that I have seen many circumstances where the legal description enclosed in title is a metes and bounds that may or may not mention that the property is the same as Lot X of So and So subdivision. When you plot the metes and bounds, it does not, in fact, match the record plat and there are gaps and overlaps created based on the found monumentation used in preparing the legal description. While I understand that some clients insist on a measured legal, does this not cloud title when they use this legal as the vesting legal from that point forward? If you ever run across this situation and the caption says that it is Lot X of So and So subdivision, do you use the record plat data and show the measured data that you obtained or do you show the record title data and no plat data? To me, if the plat is referenced in the caption, then the plat is King and all references that vary should be shown based on plat data and not what some other surveyor went out and measured and wrote a measured description from. In my opinion, we should only use the plat as record data and then show our measured for the particular job. However this can usually cause problems when a title attorney looks at the job. I hope that what I have asked makes sense and appreciate all the feedback from everyone on this matter.
To read the rest of this thread go to www.i-boards.com/bnp/pob/messages.asp?MsgID=1543935&ThreadID=145499&IsResponse=False#1543935.
