2017 ORS 93.310¹
Rules for construing description of real property

The following are the rules for construing the descriptive part of a conveyance of real property, when the construction is doubtful, and there are no other sufficient circumstances to determine it:

(1) Where there are certain definite and ascertained particulars in the description, the addition of others, which are indefinite, unknown or false, does not frustrate the conveyance, but it is to be construed by such particulars, if they constitute a sufficient description to ascertain its application.

(2) When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines, angles or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount.

(3) Between different measurements which are inconsistent with each other, that of angles is paramount to that of surfaces, and that of lines paramount to both.

(4) When a road or stream of water not navigable is the boundary, the rights of the grantor to the middle of the road, or the thread of the stream, are included in the conveyance, except where the road or bed of the stream is held under another title.

(5) When tidewater is the boundary, the rights of the grantor to low watermark are included in the conveyance, and also the right of this state between high and low watermark.

(6) When the description refers to a map, and that reference is inconsistent with other particulars, it controls them, if it appears that the parties acted with reference to the map; otherwise the map is subordinate to other definite and ascertained particulars.

Notes of Decisions

When a conveyance describes prop­erty as bordering on a street, absent an express pro­vi­sion in the conveyance to the contrary, such a conveyance includes the fee to the street. Fossi v. Myers, 271 Or 611, 533 P2d 337 (1975)

Bank of wa­terway is “monu­ment” for purposes of reconciling inconsistency between boundaries or monu­ments and measure­ment of lines, angles or surfaces. Belmont v. Umpqua Sand and Gravel, 273 Or 581, 542 P2d 884 (1975); Denison v. Hodge, 196 Or App 248, 100 P3d 1144 (2004), Sup Ct review denied

Where there are irreconcilable descrip­tions in an instru­ment of conveyance, the court must choose that descrip­tion which best comports with the inten­tion of the parties considering all the circumstances attending the conveyance. McCoshum v. Hoselton, 273 Or 778, 543 P2d 657 (1975)

This sec­tion does not effect a transfer of tidelands along the Columbia River which belongs to the state rather than the upland owner due to the failure of the original grantee to purchase the tidelands under the proper statutory pro­ce­dure, distinguishing McAdam v. Smith, 221 Or 48, 350 P2d 689 (1960). State Land Bd. v. Heuker, 25 Or App 137, 548 P2d 1323 (1976)

Where original deed in chain of title contained “impossible particular” which de­scribed nonexistent point of intersec­tion between rimrock and river, and intent of parties to original deed could not be ascertained, disputed prop­erty was left unconveyed. Tab Enterprises v. Heare, 37 Or App 879, 588 P2d 671 (1978)

Chapter 93

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Records involving title to real prop­erty registered under the Torrens system, (1972) Vol 35, p 1032

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 93—Conveyancing and Recording, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors093.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 93, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano093.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.