The court of appeals reversed, holding that the general description controlled, reasoning that the 1973 deed should be construed to convey the greatest estate the terms permit.Ĭourts seek to discern the parties language from the deed’s language in its entirety “without reference to matters of mere form, relative position of descriptions, technicalities, or arbitrary rules.” Further, all parts of a written document must be harmonized and given meaning, if possible.
SAMPLE METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION TRIAL
The trial court found that the metes-and-bounds controlled. The general description purports to convey the 34 acres, while the metes-and-bounds do not. It is the inconsistency in this 1973 deed that led to this lawsuit. Conversely, however, the 1973 deed’s metes-and-bounds description, which is said to “more fully describe” the tracts, does not include the 34 acre tract. 137 of the Deed Records of Brazos County.” The parties agree that this general language does describe the 34 acres at issue. 130, and described in a deed from Rowy W. The 1973 deed describes the land being deeded as including “a 202 acre tract out of Thomas Henry Survey, Abs. If it was not, however, Millican does not have title. If the land was included, then Millican holds title to the land. The parties disagree as to whether the 34 acres at issue was included in that transfer. Things get complicated, however, when a 1973 deed conveyed 4,900 acres from the Prescott family to Barnett. Tracing this back in the deed records, there is a 1945 deed that, using metes-and-bounds identifies 202 acres, including the 34 acre tract in dispute, as being deeded from Roy Nun to PP Prescott. They are at odds over which of them owns a 34.28 acre tract. Millican and McGregor are neighboring landowners in Brazos County. When the metes-and-bounds description in a deed conflicts with another, more general description in the deed, which controls? The Texas Supreme Court recently answered this question in Stribling v.
0 kommentar(er)
