Court Opinion

ID: 9567927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:59:07.282109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:23:16.285876
License: Public Domain

LEHMAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. While I am not offended by the result reached by the majority, the reasoning used to reach the result does not convince me to join. The issue to which I refer is the discrepancy between the metes and bounds description and the lot description.
The prior owners of the subject property obtained a deed which referenced the lots and blocks of the proposed Trails West Estates but then continued to describe the property with a metes and bounds description. There was a discrepancy between those descriptions, with the lots containing more property than the metes and bounds description. The majority does not deal with that discrepancy, but merely says the prior owners filed their deed first with notice of the lots and blocks and, therefore, their interest is superior.
Query: If the metes and bounds description contained more land than the lots as they were eventually platted and recorded, would the property owners be entitled to the metes and bounds description including the additional land because their interest was superior? A hierarchy has developed when a deed contains reference to a plat along with a metes and bounds description. Recognizing that a plat is simpler and a more accurate method of describing property, a plat description will generally prevail. However, if the description in the deed is intended to be superior to the plat, or is not intended to be a mere secondary restatement of the description in the plat, the deed description will prevail. 14 Powell on Real Property, ch. 81A, ¶ 899[3] pp. 81A-113 & -114 (1997).
In this instance, the plat was not of record when the deed was prepared containing the reference. Given that fact, could the metes and bounds description be a mere secondary restatement of the plat description? If the plat was not recorded for anyone to see, was it attached to the deed? Was the proposed plat changed from the time it was referenced in the deed to the time it was recorded? Did the later transaction referencing only the lots on the now recorded plat in essence cure the original discrepancy? Which description prevails?
These are all questions left unanswered by the majority, and the discussion of the issue provides no guidance.