Conveyance – Metes and Bounds

The fact that the grantor did not specifically include railroad right-of-way in his metes and bounds descriptions of lots into which tract was subdivided did not mean that grantees of lots abutting right-of-way did not acquire land underlying right-of-way. The grantor was a fee simple owner of servient land underlying easement, and did not explicitly retain right-of-way upon subdividing tract, with result that easement and servient estate underlying it were transferred when tract was subdivided. Dowd v. City of Omaha, Douglas County, 2 Neb. App. 958, 520 N.W.2d (1994).

Where metes and bounds description, taken as a whole is sufficiently clear to indicate intended bounds of subject parcel, with courses and distances set out clearly, and there is clear indication of legislative intent that such courses and distance control, conflicting statements therein erroneously fixing particular property or street lines may be rejected as inadvertent error. Christensen v. City of Tekamah, 432 N.W.2d 798, 230 Neb. 576 (1988).

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: