## Facts

- John and Frances Ramsey owned real property in Maricopa County, Arizona, and listed it for sale through Zee Realty and Trust Co.
- The listing used a metes-and-bounds description identifying a larger tract, including references to the San Francisco Canal and section lines, and excluding a road.
- A buyer agreed to purchase a portion of the tract, and an escrow was opened with Arizona Title Insurance and Trust Co.
- The escrow instructions described the conveyance as the “west 160 feet” of the previously described metes-and-bounds tract.
- Arizona Title prepared and recorded a deed describing the conveyance as the “west 160 feet” of the tract as measured from the easterly right-of-way line of Central Avenue, excepting any portion lying within Central Avenue.
- The Ramseys asserted the escrow instructions and deed used different reference points and therefore did not describe the same land, and they claimed the broker and title/escrow company failed to carry out the escrow instructions or negligently drafted the deed.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Arizona Title and Zee Realty, ruling the two descriptions identified the same property as a matter of law; the Ramseys appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether, on undisputed physical facts, the deed’s legal description and the escrow instructions’ legal description identified the same parcel as a matter of law.
2. Whether the asserted difference in reference lines created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Arizona Title and Zee Realty.
- The court held that the deed and escrow instructions described the same property despite differing wording.
- Because the physical facts were undisputed, interpretation of the written descriptions presented a legal question suitable for summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- When extrinsic physical facts are undisputed, determining whether written legal descriptions refer to the same parcel is a question of law.
- Seemingly different legal descriptions are treated as equivalent if they can be reconciled and located on the ground to identify the same land.
- Summary judgment is proper where no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the dispute turns solely on legal interpretation of written instruments.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that measuring the “west 160 feet” from Central Avenue’s easterly right-of-way line yielded the same strip described as the “west 160 feet” of the metes-and-bounds tract in the escrow instructions; with no factual dispute about the property’s layout, the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.


Ramsey v. Arizona Title Ins. & Tr. Co., 10 Ariz. App. 538 (Ct. App. 1969)