Does the “natural monument” hold over the bearings and distances?
Soliciting your opinion on the attached legal description.
Do you hold the bearing and distances, or do you field locate the “base” and hold that?
It should be noted that I found rebar and cap at about half of the angle points of the described boundary.
This is my answer:
We show the covenant as understood by us to be described. However, there may be some ambiguity with the location if one was to argue that the calls to, ??the base of the hill,? and, ??the base of an existing hill? represents a call to and along a natural monument and that the physical location of the base (toe?) as seen in the eyes of a surveyor or engineer supersedes the called out and described location in the legal description. This appears to be the approach of (another surveyor).
I find this approach to be problematic in that the legal description of Parcel 1 the covenant area??s north boundary is specifically described as, ????the base of the hill as described in Parcel 2 below??? This appears to define the base of the hill not by future analysis of contours and slopes, but by the courses laid out in the description of Parcel 2. That said, I am open to discussion on the location with your counsel or with another surveyor, and I will reach out to other professionals to gain their opinions.
Log in to reply.