-
Easement Interpretation
I have a gas pipeline easement with the description reading as follows:
A strip of ground sixty feet (60′) wide, less right-of-way, along the east side of the northeast quarter of Section 36.
With a 33′ statutory right-of-way, I’m not sure if this means that the east 93 feet of the section is encumbered or just 27′ in addition to the right-of-way. Any suggestions?
-
11 Replies
-
Sixty feet of the section is burdened, they do not want the right of way burdened, so just the 27 feet along the edge of the 33 R/W
-
I interpret that description to mean a 60′ strip (total) minus the 33′ right-of-way, thus leaving a total strip of easement rights 27 feet wide.
No idea why they would have chosen to describe it that way instead of just saying a 27′ wide strip in which the east line thereof lies coincident with the west line of xxxx right of way.
-
That is probably wording that includes the construction zone to build the pipeline.
-
I agree with the other reply’s here…. The ROW is 33′ and then the next 27′ is the easement.
Only if the pipeline exists 90′ from the section line is there a problem… then you have a latent ambiguity.
-
Yeah, I am showing the west boundary of the easement 60 feet from the Section line. It is a small town water company. I think someone was trying to play junior lawyer. Thanks for the input.
-
Agree with the others, the easement encumbers 27 feet adjacent and adjoining the right-of-way.
Possibly worded that way (a) because they had no idea how wide the ROW was, or (b) in order to avoid having to hire a surveyor or someone to write a metes & bounds description. Been a while since I worked in Texas – aren’t M&B required for easements that are not a consistent width and adjoining a property line?
“…people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.” -Neil Postman -
Then why did you ask for suggestions?
-
Because I wasn’t sure. I originally had it at 93 feet from the section line, but while I was waiting for replies, I decided to move it. It was over 30 minutes from when I posted the question to the first reply. Gave me time to think about it. Also, verification of my decision is nice to see.
-
I’m multi-state registrant. This is in Oklahoma. No statutory RoWs in Texas that I am aware of.
And yes, easements must be prepared by a registrant except where it does not bisect or protrude into a tract, is a blanket easement or can be clearly located and defined without a metes and bounds within a tract in a recorded subdivision plat and adjoins a platted boundary line.
-
“With a 33′ statutory right-of-way”
Andy – I’m not familiar with the concept of statutory rights-of-way. Does this mean that by Oklahoma law, all section lines are the center of a 66′ wide public roadway and utility easement?
-
“With a 33′ statutory right-of-way”
Andy – I’m not familiar with the concept of statutory rights-of-way. Does this mean that by Oklahoma law, all section lines are the center of a 66′ wide public roadway and utility easement?
There’s a little misconception about “statutory” section line R/W in Oklahoma. It’s really not State Statute but Federal Statute. At statehood in 1907 Oklahoma was mandated to accept the various R/Ws as a part of their acceptance into the Union. And yes, they vary significantly depending on whether you’re in what was Oklahoma Territory (all 4 rods wide centered on the section line) or Indian Territory. In the I.T. the R/Ws vary from nothing to 2, 3 or 4 rods in width.
In the past I did a lot of research on the subject. Most (if not all) of these R/Ws were created by the U.S. Congress as native lands were gobbled up by the feds in the 1866 to 1890 time line. And although the “public” is the main grantee of all these dedications, it is evident the Congress had other ideas in mind for the existence of public R/W. Sure the entrymen needed a way to get their wares and crops to market so the Congress could tax everything. But most of these R/Ws were created twenty years or longer before these lands were open for settlement. I believe the main reason for the existence of statutory section line R/W was to give the U.S. forces a “legal” avenue of entry into Indian Lands to squelch any uprisings; a main source of irritation and aggravation for those in Washington during the 30 years it took to get the area populated by the “yellow eyes”. Congress was (is) crazy like a fox.
Sad but true.
edit: here’s a map put together by someone that meant well. These “Statute-at-large” Volume and Page numbers are apparently from antiquated or obsolete record filing numbers. They’ve been perpetuated over the years, but the Statutes I’ve found are nowhere near these numbers. I’ve got them all on an old storage drive. Maybe I’ll dig them back up someday.
Log in to reply.