Community Forums

Share:

Okie Legals  

Page 1 / 6

Andy Nold
Posts: 1922
Member
(@andy-nold)
1,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

I've done a few miles of right-of-way in Oklahoma this year and a few plats for terminals. Sent in my CCRs, getting comfortable with the work. Today the title company bounced my metes and bounds description for one of the terminals and sent me an example with a request to rewrite. As we have discussed, Texas metes and bounds can tend to be verbose since we are not a recording state and the goal is to get as much information into the recorded deed. I am the original surveyor for this tract that we are cutting out. It seems downright irresponsible to me not to put in the description of the monuments set. The barebones title company description seems lacking to me. Opinions welcome.

Mine:

ok legal 1

Their example:

ok legal 2

 

Also, apparently another entity that still relies on the facsimile machine. I wonder if it has been upgraded from steam powered?

45 Replies
5 Replies
Duane Frymire
Member
(@duane-frymire)
Joined: 9 years ago

1,000+ posts
Posts: 1673

Not an Okey thing, it's a R.O.W. thing.  They don't want the monuments or coordinates to be confused as controlling elements. In their suggested description, there are no possibility of conflict in the future.  In case of a future dispute over the location of the section lines/title lines, there can be no argument that the description stops at some monument or coordinate.

Working on one right now where the R.O.W. misses the PL by about 7 feet.  But the monuments set after the fact do not control, nor does the coordinate, and neither are mentioned in the description just in case this happens.  Unfortunately, the utility company used the DOT coordinate in their subsequent description of an easement to relocate the poles, which could raise questions about their easement location, but I'm treating it as I do the R.O.W. description.  Still, I wish that coordinate call was not in there as it is the most definite and easily located part of the description, which normally would have to be controlling. Should not be two clear as day intentions, that might in the future come into conflict, expressed in one deed. 

On the other hand, it sounds like in your case a complete and thorough survey of the entire parent tract was done, which is not like a typical route survey that doesn't necessarily find the true sidelines of all the parcels it travels through.  But title company is probably just following "standard" right of way description practice.

Reply
aliquot
Member
(@aliquot)
Joined: 8 years ago

1,000+ posts
Posts: 1051
Posted by: Duane Frymire

Not an Okey thing, it's a R.O.W. thing.  They don't want the monuments or coordinates to be confused as controlling elements. In their suggested description, there are no possibility of conflict in the future.  In case of a future dispute over the location of the section lines/title lines, there can be no argument that the description stops at some monument or coordinate.

Working on one right now where the R.O.W. misses the PL by about 7 feet.  But the monuments set after the fact do not control, nor does the coordinate, and neither are mentioned in the description just in case this happens.  Unfortunately, the utility company used the DOT coordinate in their subsequent description of an easement to relocate the poles, which could raise questions about their easement location, but I'm treating it as I do the R.O.W. description.  Still, I wish that coordinate call was not in there as it is the most definite and easily located part of the description, which normally would have to be controlling. Should not be two clear as day intentions, that might in the future come into conflict, expressed in one deed. 

On the other hand, it sounds like in your case a complete and thorough survey of the entire parent tract was done, which is not like a typical route survey that doesn't necessarily find the true sidelines of all the parcels it travels through.  But title company is probably just following "standard" right of way description practice.

Lets not start this ROW monuments thing again. Some of your statements have been heavily disputed in a few very long threads here.  

Reply
Dave Karoly
Member
(@dave-karoly)
Joined: 9 years ago

10,000+ posts
Posts: 10197
Posted by: aliquot
Posted by: Duane Frymire

Not an Okey thing, it's a R.O.W. thing.  They don't want the monuments or coordinates to be confused as controlling elements. In their suggested description, there are no possibility of conflict in the future.  In case of a future dispute over the location of the section lines/title lines, there can be no argument that the description stops at some monument or coordinate.

Working on one right now where the R.O.W. misses the PL by about 7 feet.  But the monuments set after the fact do not control, nor does the coordinate, and neither are mentioned in the description just in case this happens.  Unfortunately, the utility company used the DOT coordinate in their subsequent description of an easement to relocate the poles, which could raise questions about their easement location, but I'm treating it as I do the R.O.W. description.  Still, I wish that coordinate call was not in there as it is the most definite and easily located part of the description, which normally would have to be controlling. Should not be two clear as day intentions, that might in the future come into conflict, expressed in one deed. 

On the other hand, it sounds like in your case a complete and thorough survey of the entire parent tract was done, which is not like a typical route survey that doesn't necessarily find the true sidelines of all the parcels it travels through.  But title company is probably just following "standard" right of way description practice.

Lets not start this ROW monuments thing again. Some of your statements have been heavily disputed in a few very long threads here.  

The way the Westlaw Research Lawyers organized the law of boundaries made it a lot more understandable to me. Let’s say you have two boxes of rules, A and B. So you have rule A1 but you are in box B so it doesn’t apply to your situation.

The law of boundaries evolved to gradually transition from Deed rules of construction to establishment but not always. If it was easy anyone could do it. I get it, it’s easier to reject a whole class of evidence out of hand than consider the difficult questions.

Reply
aliquot
Member
(@aliquot)
Joined: 8 years ago

1,000+ posts
Posts: 1051
Posted by: Dave Karoly

The law of boundaries evolved to gradually transition from Deed rules of construction to establishment but not always. If it was easy anyone could do it. I get it, it’s easier to reject a whole class of evidence out of hand than consider the difficult questions.

Who is rejecting a whole class of evidence? 

Reply
Duane Frymire
Member
(@duane-frymire)
Joined: 9 years ago

1,000+ posts
Posts: 1673
Posted by: aliquot
Posted by: Duane Frymire

Not an Okey thing, it's a R.O.W. thing.  They don't want the monuments or coordinates to be confused as controlling elements. In their suggested description, there are no possibility of conflict in the future.  In case of a future dispute over the location of the section lines/title lines, there can be no argument that the description stops at some monument or coordinate.

Working on one right now where the R.O.W. misses the PL by about 7 feet.  But the monuments set after the fact do not control, nor does the coordinate, and neither are mentioned in the description just in case this happens.  Unfortunately, the utility company used the DOT coordinate in their subsequent description of an easement to relocate the poles, which could raise questions about their easement location, but I'm treating it as I do the R.O.W. description.  Still, I wish that coordinate call was not in there as it is the most definite and easily located part of the description, which normally would have to be controlling. Should not be two clear as day intentions, that might in the future come into conflict, expressed in one deed. 

On the other hand, it sounds like in your case a complete and thorough survey of the entire parent tract was done, which is not like a typical route survey that doesn't necessarily find the true sidelines of all the parcels it travels through.  But title company is probably just following "standard" right of way description practice.

Lets not start this ROW monuments thing again. Some of your statements have been heavily disputed in a few very long threads here.  

Really?  Must be why the teacher never calls on me even when my hands up:)

Reply
Nate The Surveyor
Posts: 8591
(@nate-the-surveyor)
5,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

I've finally capitulated around here. Not barebones, but kinda streamlined. 

Don't slow down anything. "Time is money, and money is what we are here for". Seems to guide...

Reply
Bill93
Posts: 5367
Member
(@bill93)
5,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

Who has the professional license to judge what is sufficient?

Reply
paden cash
Posts: 9153
Member
(@paden-cash)
5,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

Welcome to Oklahoma.

When it comes to title companies around here I've noticed the lower the intelligence of the employee, the higher up they are in their internal food chain.

I see plenty of descriptions written by Okie surveyors with calls to monuments and reserve the right to same in a lot of instances.  And I see more and more of them as time goes by.  I think it's a good thing.  I would probably tell the title company they're free to hack it up (like they always do) any way they see fit...just make sure they leave off your name from their quicky-edit.

 But I am top of my 'food chain' around here and can be a butt anytime I feel like it.  I couldn't do that when I was punchin' a clock for someone else.

I'd probably check with the guy that writes the checks and see if you can afford to stand by your professional work...

Reply
Andy Nold
Posts: 1922
Member
(@andy-nold)
1,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

Well, I compromised. Hopefully she'll be happy.

ok legal 3

Reply
Page 1 / 6