[WSBARP] legal description "all real property in County X"

[John McCrady]

This general language has been held satisfactory for conveyances by deed.
See Worden v. Worden 96 Wash. 592


  Objection is made that this agreement between the spouses is insufficient because it [165 P. 505 ] attempts to convey by general, instead of specific, description of the land. If it were in fact a conveyance, it recites that Nellie Worden 'does hereby

96 Wash. 601

grant, bargain, sell and convey unto said party of the first part [Ata Worden] all of her community right, title, and interest in and to all real estate situated in the state of Washington, the record title of which may be in the name of said party of the first part.' Such description was fully adequate for the purpose of identifying the land intended, especially as between the parties. Butrick v. Tilton, 141 Mass. 93<https://www.casemakerlegal.com/SearchResult.aspx?searchFields%5bstate%5d=&query=141+Mass.+93&juriStatesHidden=&searchCriteria=Citation&tabAction=ALLC&dtypeName=&headAdmin=&headCaselaw=&headStatutes=&searchType=overview&jurisdictions.allStates=on&jurisdictions.includeRelatedFederal=on&pinCite=y>, 6 N.E. 563; Harvey v. Edens, 69 Tex. 420, 6 S.W. 306<https://www.casemakerlegal.com/SearchResult.aspx?searchFields%5bstate%5d=&query=6+S.W.+306&juriStatesHidden=&searchCriteria=Citation&tabAction=ALLC&dtypeName=&headAdmin=&headCaselaw=&headStatutes=&searchType=overview&jurisdictions.allStates=on&jurisdictions.includeRelatedFederal=on&pinCite=y>; Brown v. Warren, 16 Nev. 228<https://www.casemakerlegal.com/SearchResult.aspx?searchFields%5bstate%5d=&query=16+Nev.+228&juriStatesHidden=&searchCriteria=Citation&tabAction=ALLC&dtypeName=&headAdmin=&headCaselaw=&headStatutes=&searchType=overview&jurisdictions.allStates=on&jurisdictions.includeRelatedFederal=on&pinCite=y>; First Nat. Bank v. Hughes, 10 Mo.App. 7<https://www.casemakerlegal.com/SearchResult.aspx?searchFields%5bstate%5d=&query=10+Mo.App.+7&juriStatesHidden=&searchCriteria=Citation&tabAction=ALLC&dtypeName=&headAdmin=&headCaselaw=&headStatutes=&searchType=overview&jurisdictions.allStates=on&jurisdictions.includeRelatedFederal=on&pinCite=y>.



John McCrady
Counsel
Puget Sound Title Company
5350 Orchard Street West
University Place WA 98466
253-476-5721

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Doug Schafer
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 10:28 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] legal description "all real property in County X"

Quick thoughts:  My understanding is that a devise in a probated will is sufficient to transfer title without needing a PR's deed, so a testamentary devise of "all my real property located in X County, State of Washington" would be a valid transfer of title to the deceased testator's property.  By analogy, your deed might also be valid at least as to real property.  The county auditor's grantor-grantee index would identify all real property that was owned by the Grantor when it delivered the deed.

Doug Schafer
On 7/5/2016 6:03 PM, Eric Nelsen wrote:
So I have here a deed recorded in 1994 with a legal description that says "All real estate and other property owned by the Grantor located in County X, State of Washington, including without limitation leaseholds, easements, mineral interests..." etc. No specific Sec/Township/Range, no Plat or other real property ID. No parcel numbers. Just "all real estate interests in the county."

The special circumstance--The Grantor received property via a deed using this same vague description. That deed was from a railroad company to Grantor -- Grantor is a spinoff company from the RR pursuant to bankruptcy reorganization of the RR. But this subject deed is, I think, from the spinoff company to a third party corporation for value--at least excise tax was paid on it. So I think it's a conventional conveyance, subject to ordinary rules, post-bankruptcy.

I think the deed is void, because it has insufficient legal description to definitely locate any property without resort to parol evidence. It's also ineffective to convey easement interests, for the same reasons--no description of the burdened property that is benefitted by the easement.

Anyone disagree or have some thoughts about a deed with such a legal description, and whether it could convey easement rights?

Sincerely,

Eric

Eric C. Nelsen
SAYRE LAW OFFICES, PLLC
1417 31st Ave South
Seattle WA  98144-3909
phone 206-625-0092
fax 206-625-9040

Please Note that We Have Moved

We have moved our Seattle office to Mount Baker Ridge (a small commercial community just above the I-90 tunnel).

Our new address is 1417 31st Avenue South, Seattle WA 98144. All other contact information remains the same.





_______________________________________________

WSBARP mailing list

WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>

http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20160706/2877ae06/attachment.html>