Conflicting calls in legal description
In both Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties, I have run in to this description way to many times:
"... thence at right angles, parallel to the easterly line of Maple Street, 500.00 feet..."
What if "at right angles" is not the same as "parallel to"? With no monuments found, which call should be held?
Is there any possession? Do the effected owners have any knowledge? Which solution contrues against the preparer of the creation description? Does one close and the other not?
The list goes on, but those are a few highlights...
CFedS, PLS ID-OR-WA-UT-NV
To add to the list by Tom, probably the most important question is: Has the boundary been established or not (are you re-tracing an existing boundary, or are you helping the owners establish it on the ground for the first time)?
Retrace the existing boundary and/or help the owners (re)/establish it and remove any ambiguities.
Throw out conflicting information and follow the path that mostly fits the defined course as exists on the ground.
RPLS NE Texas