Is this MBE real property description "too vague"?? Forum

[FinallyPassedTheBar]

"All that part of my farm, being a square with 200-foot sides, the southeast corner of which is in the north line of my neighbor."

The answer said the above description is too vague, and thus the deed is void.

But what exactly is too vague about it? The property is 200 feet on each side, located on the Southeast corner, and abuts the neighbors north property line. That's a definite description of the property right!?!?!

[NY_Sea]

"All that part of my farm, being a square with 200-foot sides, the southeast corner of which is in the north line of my neighbor."

The answer said the above description is too vague, and thus the deed is void.

But what exactly is too vague about it? The property is 200 feet on each side, located on the Southeast corner, and abuts the neighbors north property line. That's a definite description of the property right!?!?!

So, yeah I can see where you're coming from, but you need to think of it in terms of the question makers. Definite to them MEANS definite... How I've been approaching these types of questions is that if it doesn't have an address or coordinates for the land, it's more likely than not going to be too vague in their eyes. It makes sense if you think about it... Yeah, it's in the southeast corner what exactly is the "southeast corner"? If I tell you I'm standing at the corner of X and Y street, are you literally expecting me to be at the exact point they meet? What if I'm standing a little further down Y street? Am I still at the corner?

I know it's annoying, but my approach has seemed to work most of the time when approaching these questions... YMMV, though.

[BVest]

"All that part of my farm, being a square with 200-foot sides, the southeast corner of which is in the north line of my neighbor."

The answer said the above description is too vague, and thus the deed is void.

But what exactly is too vague about it? The property is 200 feet on each side, located on the Southeast corner, and abuts the neighbors north property line. That's a definite description of the property right!?!?!

There are a lot of vagaries here: What neighbor? What orientation? Where on the neighbor's north property line does the SE corner rest?

Let's pretend that we know the orientation is perfectly north/south, i.e. that the square lines up with a compass perfectly (not a given). Let's also pretend that we know which neighbor we're talking about (and that said neighbor only owns one property in the county, so you know which of his properties we're talking about). As you can see, we already having to pretend to know a lot. Anyway, even knowing that, a line (the neighbor's north line) is composed of an infinite number of points. Where on that line is the Southeast corner?

ETA Examples:

[FinallyPassedTheBar]

I guess maybe I read the description wrong? I read it to mean the ENTIRE farm is 200 feet in all sides. Thus, there can only be one SE corner. But then that would be a really tiny farm. So the description "all that part of my farm" must have meant the grantor was dividing his farm and conveying a random square section (200' on all sides). In that case, it can be impossible to determine where the SE corner of that portion touches the neighbors north line. That SE corner could be anywhere on the neighbor's north line, like BVest said.

I guess I am more annoyed that the MBE examiners would use such clunky language to test this issue. If the question just said that the grantor was dividing his farm into smaller sections, then it would be clear. From now on, I will take your approach NY-Sea and stick with REAL CLEAR definite terms on the description requirement. (On Adaptibar, 50% of the students incorrectly answered that the description was definite enough for a proper deed.)

[BVest]

I guess maybe I read the description wrong? I read it to mean the ENTIRE farm is 200 feet in all sides. Thus, there can only be one SE corner. But then that would be a really tiny farm. So the description "all that part of my farm" must have meant the grantor was dividing his farm and conveying a random square section (200' on all sides). In that case, it can be impossible to determine where the SE corner of that portion touches the neighbors north line. That SE corner could be anywhere on the neighbor's north line, like BVest said.

I guess I am more annoyed that the MBE examiners would use such clunky language to test this issue. If the question just said that the grantor was dividing his farm into smaller sections, then it would be clear. From now on, I will take your approach NY-Sea and stick with REAL CLEAR definite terms on the description requirement. (On Adaptibar, 50% of the students incorrectly answered that the description was definite enough for a proper deed.)

You're right about the division of the farm, but also right that you don't know where that square falls, except that it's somewhere on the south side of the property. (And since it's a division of an existing farm, you would really need to know that it's his only property in the county).

From the real world, I can tell you there's some very clunky language out there on deeds, which gives rise to the very litigation that finds deeds void for vagueness.

[NY_Sea]

I guess maybe I read the description wrong? I read it to mean the ENTIRE farm is 200 feet in all sides. Thus, there can only be one SE corner. But then that would be a really tiny farm. So the description "all that part of my farm" must have meant the grantor was dividing his farm and conveying a random square section (200' on all sides). In that case, it can be impossible to determine where the SE corner of that portion touches the neighbors north line. That SE corner could be anywhere on the neighbor's north line, like BVest said.

I guess I am more annoyed that the MBE examiners would use such clunky language to test this issue. If the question just said that the grantor was dividing his farm into smaller sections, then it would be clear. From now on, I will take your approach NY-Sea and stick with REAL CLEAR definite terms on the description requirement. (On Adaptibar, 50% of the students incorrectly answered that the description was definite enough for a proper deed.)

It's a tricky question, don't think that it isn't... I think my approach is good even from a future legal perspective, like BVest pointed out. It's hard to determine what land you're giving away if the language doesn't tell you exactly. Remember... Look for an address (44 Main Street) or coordinates. Cause let's say you have a combination of things where you have a definite address AND language like the type you have here... The deed is still going to be good because the address is definite enough that you know exactly what you're giving up.