Over the years, I have found that disagreeing with the County's interpretation generally leads to the truth. It is appalling that there are so many faulty County Road Proceedings....
Cynical, I suppose, but there it is....
Because the county surveyor used the closing corners, I would be asking myself if adjacent owners also the same closing corners to control land lines? If the answer is yes, then the ROW being located in same way would all the intent I would need.
Greg Spurlock
I'll give you my answer with a question: Do you follow the line as run, or as it should have been run?
My take is that you duplicate what Mr. Burg did, not what he should have done.
> I'll give you my answer with a question: Do you follow the line as run, or as it should have been run?
>
> My take is that you duplicate what Mr. Burg did, not what he should have done.
Very good answer.
I may clarify/expand it to say "My take is that you duplicate what Mr. Burg actually did (with acceptance of the parties), not what he said he did, or what he should have done."
You go with what Burg did, not what he should have done, and in any case the Grantors agreed. To take it to the extreme, suppose Burg had run a straight line from one section corner on the west end to another section corner on the east end, passing by all of the intermediate section corners, quarter corners, and closing corners, so they had an absolutely arrow straight road. If the Grantors agreed to that, do we now, decades later, connect the dots between all of the section and quarter corners because we think that was what Burg should have done.
There are a few other items involved, such as multiple monuments, deed calls to the township line, obvious blunders perpetuated by the county, alternate monumented centerlines, etc.. As usual, it depends...Best be careful when your wandering around that part of town.
Yeah, one of the problems I would be concerned about is original ownership.
If you have two different owners North and South of the Township line, and the closing corner is not on the line, then one owner is granting title to land he doesn't own and the other is unintentionally retaining title to that same strip.
> Yeah, one of the problems I would be concerned about is original ownership.
>
> If you have two different owners North and South of the Township line, and the closing corner is not on the line, then one owner is granting title to land he doesn't own and the other is unintentionally retaining title to that same strip.
When considering a RW acquisition from properties on both sides of the Township line, it wont matter much. Presumably the owners of properties on each side of the Township line, each conveying some portion of their land for RW purposes, viewed the line as surveyed and agreed on that basis.
Here is the key language of the actual deed. Note the last paragraph. Since both sides of the Township line agreed, I say there is no gap, and the right-of-way is centered on the line as run by Burg. The North 50 feet may not be literally true, but then bearings and distances seldom are.
There is a reason for that paragraph and the language that clearly states they have "examined the line of survey of said highway made upon the ground by the Pima County Engineer."
He is working in an ideal location. Those deeds do not exist for the length of the roadway. Again, it depends on where you are. There are locations where the monuments used by Burg were not perpetuated, and one area where there is an obvious blunder, wherein the County Highway boyos replaced the CC in the wrong location. There are also monuments that have been established on the ROW in several locations that predate the reestablished monuments indicating alternate locations. The current monuments in this area were reset last year after they were erroneously reestablished by a subcontractor and his handy-dandy RTK GPS unit, disregarding the references. The ROS noting the reestablishment was not indexed properly at the Recorder's office. Again, research says, "It depends". Best be careful with those broad generalizations.
