Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › Excuse me, but you just stepped in…
Excuse me, but you just stepped in…
dave-karoly replied 6 years, 9 months ago 13 Members · 48 Replies
clearcut, post: 437109, member: 297 wrote: The fence has since been removed and a newer fence is now in place at this location. But again, stones around fence posts are not common in this particular area.
But what rebuts the null hypothesis that the post and mound you have in mind was actually a stake set along the line prior to fence construction?
Wouldn’t a fence post be an unusual-sized post to find set for a corner? Typically, the “posts” that 19th-century surveyors set (in Texas) weren’t great, stout, well-founded posts of the sort that was later suitable for a wire fence (when it was eventually invented), but smaller things, chosen for convenience. That included cutting the post somewhere near the corner, typically and didn’t necessarily mean a post tall enough to serve as a fence post.
My first reply relied on your statement that 7 of 8 corners were found (I presumed they were either the original GLO corners or documented perpetuations) and the S1/4 corner was most likely missed rather than rejected. While it can take a while for the BLM to arrive at a final solution, you can request a written opinion, which certainly doesn’t take years. The IBLA cases I cited may still be informative.
If the BLM agrees that the post and stone mound should have been accepted as the S1/4, all you should need to do is figure out where those 2 unmonumented and unfenced deed splits go in relation to the private surveys done between 1970 and 1976. That would leave a triangular gap in the NW1/4 that is 55′ by 2640′ that the subdivider may still own.
If the BLM still hold the proportioned corner, there is a potential 110′ x 5280′ triangular gap to the west of all those surveys in the E1/2 and I’ll leave that problem to clearcut.
I am still curious to know what was called for in the original notes. If the post doesnt match the call you’ll need to develop a pedigree that ties it to the original corner. The habit I see from most BLM / GLO offices is to reject monuments without evidence linking it to the original corner. If mentioned in the notes it’s usually a very abvreviated reference
As for the comments on ‘bona fide rights’, I would proceed with caution. This term is often misapplied to identified established private boundaries as controlling federal interest corners and lines. State law may very well reveal the private boundary location but it cannot move the federal interest location.
I would also avoid solutions that create a ‘gap’. At some point patents were issued and none of them said ‘except a goofy triangle’. Gather the evidence and figure it out. If an ambiguity exists or an operation of law has transferred rights, help the owners clean it up.
Good luck, TomThe original notes only called for a post in mound. No size or type given. At the west quarter corner the ’48 private survey and the ’63-’70 BLM survey both noted a 1″x2″ post.
No remains of the post were evident at this point at the S 1/4 on my first, albeit abreviated, visit. I do plan a return visit when I can spend some more time there and will disect the mound and will also do some more forensics regarding original BT calls.
Note that there were no topo calls on this line in the original notes.clearcut, post: 437117, member: 297 wrote: The original notes only called for a post in mound. No size or type given. At the west quarter corner the ’48 private survey and the ’63-’70 BLM survey both noted a 1″x2″ post.
So, from that description the “post” was a piece of lumber the size of a fence picket, apparently dimension lumber from a sawmill? Does that fit with what you know of 1860 practices in that locality?
Gene Kooper, post: 437099, member: 9850 wrote: A couple of idle thoughts for your consideration, clearcut. First, I’d contact the new CA Cadastral Chief and have a long chat. The 1963-1970 dependent resurvey by the BLM was supposed to retrace the original lines. If a preponderance of the evidence shows that it did not, you should be able to challenge the position of the south line of the section and the aliquot divisions (erroneous position for the S1/4 corner) based on gross error. The conversation could be followed by a field visit with the CA BLM. They may agree that the post and stone mound mark the original corner. If proven, the BLM may decide to conduct a Corrective Dependent Resurvey. I suggest this since there are still federal interest lands in the section.
Second, some lines may have been fixed by the actions of the land owners based on the 1963-70 BLM dependent resurvey and others by the 1948 survey (i.e. bona fide rights as to location). It may be that title lines and aliquot lines will end up differing. Since you are not in Colorado, I’ll stop here.
You may find some guidance in a pair of IBLA decisions. They are Longview Fibre (135 IBLA 170) and Hasenyager (176 IBLA 252). The latter case clarifies the scope of the Longview Fibre case. The Hasenyager case deals with a 1983 BLM Dep. Resurvey where original corners were later found. In 2010, a corrective dep. resurvey was done. This case is in Utah. Both cases are CFedS continuing education courses.
Here is a link to the DOI Office of Hearings and Appeals Advanced Search web page. I found that if I post links to cases, they are only temporary. If you have trouble downloading either, start a conversation and I’ll email them to you.
Surveyors should read those carefully. I just read Hasenyager and have read Longview Fiber before. It’s a good illustration of what is needed to overcome a BLM decision at IBLA. If surveyors would follow the substantial evidence rule it would solve a lot of problems.
Whether the monument at the south quarter corner can overcome BLM’s proportionate quarter will depend on how compelling clearcut’s evidence is at the south quarter.
Notwithstanding that, the Deeds to be located were delivered with reference to the 1948 survey (the 1963 proportionate quarter and resultant center quarter did not exist so they could not have been considered by the grantor) therefore the 1948 survey controls their location. There is some slim possibility that a location doctrine could establish the east line of the 1974 subdivision as the boundary but the problem is the 1948 monuments are known or could have been discovered removing the required element of uncertainty. The gap is most likely vested in some person(s) in the NW quarter.
clearcut, post: 437026, member: 297 wrote: ….said that little voice in my head.
1860, GLO survey subdivided township into sections, appears to have been a diligent effort in pre-Benson era.
1948, first recorded retracement of area, finds all section and 1/4 corners. Proceeds to locate and monument C-1/4 and several 1/16th corners. Appears to be good work performed by RE. Note that at S 1/4 corner he finds an old post in stone mound on fence line.
1963-1970, yes seven years. The BLM performs a dependent resurvey of this and 4 other sections in the area. USA owns the SW quarter and a 40 in the SE quarter. They accept all of the same monuments as the 1948 survey did, except for the S 1/4. At this corner they state: “no original evidence found”. Plus they don’t even acknowledge the existence of the 1948 record and its measurements to the found post and MOS. They set a corner at proportionate distance and also subdivide the section. At the C-1/4 and 1/16th corners they set monuments and don’t even acknowledge the 1948 monuments exist.
1970-1976 a series of surveys and deed splits occur in the east half of the section. All of the surveys reference and tie the 1948 location of the N-S centerline. Interestingly, none of these recorded surveys acknowledge the BLM locations or a 1974 subdivision map in the NW quarter.
1974, the NW quarter of the section is subdivided into a suburbia. 1/3 acre parcels and lots of them with roads, streets, etc. This subdivision utilizes the BLM N-S centerline for its eastern boundary. The map does not acknowledge the existence of the 1948 survey, monuments or subsequent surveys and parcel maps reliant thereon.
2017, Stupid me says sure, I’ll survey your properties to 2 owners of lands split by deed in the east half of the section immediately adjacent to the N-S centerline. In the field I find that the 1974 subdivision on the east is well monumented and well fenced. I find that none of the deed split parcels on the east side are either monumented or fenced.
I don’t practice outside of the 13 original colonies and there do not deal with BLM matters, we work on an entirely different system but I do understand your frustration. It appears to me that if you accept and hold the location of the 1948 mound and post it would result in a shift of lines.
Going back to the 70’s people have apparently acquiesced to later lines accepted. I would show what you found based on the 1948 conditions and also what the conditions are that are currently being held and let the title company sort it out. That way you have your butt covered but if it became an issue I believe that the courts would defer to the currently accepted lines of possession to quiet title.At the S-1/4 I found the BLM monument. I then measured to where the 1948 survey said they found a post and mound of stone and found an old and well embedded mound of stone exactly where they said it was…..110′ east of the BLM proportioned corner/monument..
So, long story short. I am of the opinion that the 1948 surveyor found the original 1/4 corner and properly located the aliquot subdivision lines. Pouring over the BLM field notes it would appear not that the BLM rejected this 1/4 corner, but rather they somehow missed it both in the field and in the county’s records.
I’ve got my thoughts on how best to approach this issue. I also discussed it with 2 of my peers and got 2 completely different answers, neither of which follows my line of thinking. Considering this is California and not Utah, considering common law and Calif. case and statute law guidance, and considering my goal is to prevent litigation and undue process and expense while still providing the path towards clarity of title, my thoughts wander back to those words of wisdom often asked by one of my earliest mentors; “so, you want to be a surveyor?”
As a parting thought, with the number of homes and parcels this tale of 2 lines affects, my interview of those most directly affected revealed no one knew there was any issue. Remarkably, this situation has existed for over 40 years with no clouds of title rising to the view of those owners and those who insured their land purchases.
The alternative case would be the owner of the NW quarter effected a subdivision of his holdings, he did not know where his west boundary was located, so he retained a surveyor to subdivide his lands and establish his west boundary, the subdivision was done, the lots sold, and the original owner has left the scene. By this conduct and the fact he has disappeared would tend to prove the owners in the NW quarter are limited by the 1974 boundary. The issue is the owners in the NE quarter did not participate (or maybe they did) by extending their possession to the 1974 boundary. Mutual uncertainty, mutual establishment, and mutual agreement is required, one sided agreements often fail although they are usually trying to extend, not hold back.
The Deeds in the NE quarter should be laid out in accordance with the 1948 survey under the principle that the intentions of the grantor is the paramount consideration (see the reasons in my post above). Whether they then extend to the 1974 boundary is problematic.
Dave Karoly, post: 437139, member: 94 wrote: The alternative case would be the owner of the NW quarter effected a subdivision of his holdings, he did not know where his west boundary was located, so he retained a surveyor to subdivide his lands and establish his west boundary, the subdivision was done, the lots sold, and the original owner has left the scene. By this conduct and the fact he has disappeared would tend to prove the owners in the NW quarter are limited by the 1974 boundary. The issue is the owners in the NE quarter did not participate (or maybe they did) by extending their possession to the 1974 boundary. Mutual uncertainty, mutual establishment, and mutual agreement is required, one sided agreements often fail although they are usually trying to extend, not hold back.
The Deeds in the NE quarter should be laid out in accordance with the 1948 survey under the principle that the intentions of the grantor is the paramount consideration (see the reasons in my post above). Whether they then extend to the 1974 boundary is problematic.
I wrote west boundary when I meant east boundary, knew I would do that but I did it anyway.
Dave Karoly, post: 437156, member: 94 wrote: I wrote west boundary when I meant east boundary, knew I would do that but I did it anyway.
We knew what you meant.
Kent McMillan, post: 437110, member: 3 wrote: But what rebuts the null hypothesis that the post and mound you have in mind was actually a stake set along the line prior to fence construction?
Wouldn’t a fence post be an unusual-sized post to find set for a corner? Typically, the “posts” that 19th-century surveyors set (in Texas) weren’t great, stout, well-founded posts of the sort that was later suitable for a wire fence (when it was eventually invented), but smaller things, chosen for convenience. That included cutting the post somewhere near the corner, typically and didn’t necessarily mean a post tall enough to serve as a fence post.
The mound of stone construction technique is one thing that caught my eye. This mos is placed on a slope and is more akin to a monument than a prop. It is almost masonry in its construction with large foundation rocks dug into the downhill face and a ring of successively smaller rocks that was then filled with baseball sized rocks. It is perhaps 3-1/2′ broad and is crafted to have a fairly level top. It would not provide much lateral support, but is instead typical of the type of MOS I was taught to make during my 15 years with the BLM.
I have found more posts from the GLO of this era just to the east in our volcanic/high desert area than I have here in Sacramento Valley foothills. Those were generally hewn from juniper on site and last for many decades. However here in the Sac valley and surrounding hills, most posts that I have found or have found references from early retracers were of split cedar which is very abundant, long lasting and reasonably light to pack. Most typically are in the range of 3″ to 4″ on a side and 4′ long, including embedment length. I am also of the impression that a lot of posts were cut on site and those were not necessarily of a durable wood. One notable exception was a series of posts found just a township away which were hewn from pitch pine. Those particular posts were 6″ square, 3′ long and looked like they were scribed yesterday. Pitch pine is very heavy and extremely long lasting. Of interesting note is that the mountain those posts were found on happens to be in the area this particular same GLO surveyor filed a mining claim of which became a very successful copper mine (and some gold).
My experience is also that corner monument posts sometimes had a MOS set alongside it, not around it.
Kent McMillan, post: 437121, member: 3 wrote: So, from that description the “post” was a piece of lumber the size of a fence picket, apparently dimension lumber from a sawmill? Does that fit with what you know of 1860 practices in that locality?
Re-reviewing this, I think the 1×2 came later. The ’48 surveyor actually did not call out a post as I had mispoken earlier. It was the ’63-’70 BLM who called out the 1×2. The ’48 surveyor said he only found a MOS. A 1×2 is not something typical in my experience. Usually a 3×3 or 4×4.
Dave Karoly, post: 437126, member: 94 wrote: Surveyors should read those carefully. I just read Hasenyager and have read Longview Fiber before. It’s a good illustration of what is needed to overcome a BLM decision at IBLA. If surveyors would follow the substantial evidence rule it would solve a lot of problems.
Whether the monument at the south quarter corner can overcome BLM’s proportionate quarter will depend on how compelling clearcut’s evidence is at the south quarter.
Notwithstanding that, the Deeds to be located were delivered with reference to the 1948 survey (the 1963 proportionate quarter and resultant center quarter did not exist so they could not have been considered by the grantor) therefore the 1948 survey controls their location. There is some slim possibility that a location doctrine could establish the east line of the 1974 subdivision as the boundary but the problem is the 1948 monuments are known or could have been discovered removing the required element of uncertainty. The gap is most likely vested in some person(s) in the NW quarter.
Actually the deeds were written with brgs and distances that match a 1970 private survey. That 1970 survey utilized the 1948 survey aliquot subdivisional corners as a basis for identifying the locations of a deed division of the NE quarter. That 1970 survey was recorded the same year the BLM plat was signed.
The deeds don’t actually call out the 1970 survey, but the bearings and distances contained therein match those parts of the 1970 survey lines the deeds and survey share in common. The deeds along the N-S centerline all call the centerline as the boundary. Of course an arguement is to be made that the centerline called for is that as located by the 1970 survey due to the obvious reliance on said survey for constructing the deeds.
Anyways, the deeds were written soon after the BLM had signed their plat and considerably after the monuments had been in the ground. The 1970 surveyor may or may not have known that the BLM work had been performed.
clearcut, post: 437164, member: 297 wrote: The mound of stone construction technique is one thing that caught my eye. This mos is placed on a slope and is more akin to a monument than a prop. It is almost masonry in its construction with large foundation rocks dug into the downhill face and a ring of successively smaller rocks that was then filled with baseball sized rocks. It is perhaps 3-1/2′ broad and is crafted to have a fairly level top. It would not provide much lateral support, but is instead typical of the type of MOS I was taught to make during my 15 years with the BLM.
I have found more posts from the GLO of this era just to the east in our volcanic/high desert area than I have here in Sacramento Valley foothills. Those were generally hewn from juniper on site and last for many decades. However here in the Sac valley and surrounding hills, most posts that I have found or have found references from early retracers were of split cedar which is very abundant, long lasting and reasonably light to pack. Most typically are in the range of 3″ to 4″ on a side and 4′ long, including embedment length. I am also of the impression that a lot of posts were cut on site and those were not necessarily of a durable wood. One notable exception was a series of posts found just a township away which were hewn from pitch pine. Those particular posts were 6″ square, 3′ long and looked like they were scribed yesterday. Pitch pine is very heavy and extremely long lasting. Of interesting note is that the mountain those posts were found on happens to be in the area this particular same GLO surveyor filed a mining claim of which became a very successful copper mine (and some gold).
My experience is also that corner monument posts sometimes had a MOS set alongside it, not around it.
That sounds as if the odds are better than average that there may be decayed traces of the post called for still in place. The nature of the thing, and it’s position in relation to the Stone Mound would strike me as being very good evidence that it was a surveyor’s mark made in the same way that GLO corners of the same era typically were and very consistent with the obvious conclusion.
The fact that it is on a slope sounds inconsistent with it having been set in connection with fence construction unless there are other similar mounds at some interval along the line. Had it been on a ridge or at a grade break, I’d think that the fence stake hypothesis would be stronger.
clearcut, post: 437164, member: 297 wrote: The mound of stone construction technique is one thing that caught my eye. This mos is placed on a slope and is more akin to a monument than a prop. It is almost masonry in its construction with large foundation rocks dug into the downhill face and a ring of successively smaller rocks that was then filled with baseball sized rocks. It is perhaps 3-1/2′ broad and is crafted to have a fairly level top. It would not provide much lateral support, but is instead typical of the type of MOS I was taught to make during my 15 years with the BLM.
I have found more posts from the GLO of this era just to the east in our volcanic/high desert area than I have here in Sacramento Valley foothills. Those were generally hewn from juniper on site and last for many decades. However here in the Sac valley and surrounding hills, most posts that I have found or have found references from early retracers were of split cedar which is very abundant, long lasting and reasonably light to pack. Most typically are in the range of 3″ to 4″ on a side and 4′ long, including embedment length. I am also of the impression that a lot of posts were cut on site and those were not necessarily of a durable wood. One notable exception was a series of posts found just a township away which were hewn from pitch pine. Those particular posts were 6″ square, 3′ long and looked like they were scribed yesterday. Pitch pine is very heavy and extremely long lasting. Of interesting note is that the mountain those posts were found on happens to be in the area this particular same GLO surveyor filed a mining claim of which became a very successful copper mine (and some gold).
My experience is also that corner monument posts sometimes had a MOS set alongside it, not around it.
This is very interesting, thanks.
I’ve spoken with several of my peers now about this pridicklement and find it interesting the variance in perspectives.
Gene and Dave both mentioned the idea that there may be a strip that has title still vested in the original subdivider or his/her heirs.
The California Land Surveyors Association issued an exam study guide a few years back that if I remember correctly was put together in cahoots with the Board of Registration. My understanding is the sample problems in that guide were actual problems from prior exams. I think that my memory of its origin is true partly because sample problem # 2 struck me as being exactly a problem I had on my exam many eons ago.
Anyways, what is interesting is that the CLSA exam guide also provides an answer sheet which somewhat incredibly appears to provide what is “THE” correct answer for the following:
A subdivision is filed showning one exterior boundary being coincident with a section line. A retracement survey reveals the subdivision exterior monuments were not placed on the section line. The answer sheet states that a triangular piece of land where the subdivision came up short of the section line still has title vested in the original subdivider.
I’m sure I got that problem correct way back when as my experience in private land titles at that point was primarily learned from Brown, being my work up to that point had been exclusively doing PLSS work for the BLM.In my situation one side of the N-S centerline are deed cuts which call to the N-S centerline, but it can be deduced the deed writer was guided by the location of said line by reliance on work derived from the ’48 private survey.
On the other side of the N-S centerline is a subdivision that shows said centerline as located by the BLM.Each of the subdividers obviously intended to subdivide their lands to the extent they owned, i.e. the N-S centerline.
The ’74 subdivision line is well marked, fenced and considered the line by all sides.
At this point there is no dispute. My clients hired me to find their sidelines between the unfenced deed splits. As far as they and their neighbors are concerned, the N-S centerline boundary is settled.
I’m considering a well written narrative based on risk assessment and common law principles of harmoneous relationship, while still telling a tale of 2 lines.
clearcut, post: 437186, member: 297 wrote: In my situation one side of the N-S centerline are deed cuts which call to the N-S centerline, but it can be deduced the deed writer was guided by the location of said line by reliance on work derived from the ’48 private survey.
On the other side of the N-S centerline is a subdivision that shows said centerline as located by the BLM.Each of the subdividers obviously intended to subdivide their lands to the extent they owned, i.e. the N-S centerline.
The ’74 subdivision line is well marked, fenced and considered the line by all sides..
I’ve got three and a half questions:
1. I realize that this isn’t part of the facts of the situation you describe, but if the monument that appears to likely be the original South 1/4 corner could be definitely identified with more than reasonable certainty, i.e. if there were bearing trees proving it up or if the monument itself was of a character that was unmistakably that placed by the original survey in 1860, would your opinion be different?
2. Under California law, is a deed that describes lands by reference to a map that mistakenly omits a narrow strip of land owned by the grantor that was clearly intended to be conveyed (such as the instant case) insufficient to convey title to that strip? That is, do the owners of lots on the East side of the subdivision have a claim of title, under their present deeds, to the land between their lots as platted and the original N-S centerline of the section, (as would be the case in Texas under the doctrine of strips and gores)?
3. As a general principal, do surveying mistakes such as that apparently made by the BLM always create uncertainty as to the original location of a line if the original evidence of that location is not subject to doubt? At what point are mistakes no longer merely mistakes?
3-1/2. In the scenario you mention, is the real issue that it would simply be too much trouble to deal with the gore of land lying East of the subdivision as a thing to which either the subdivider or his successors have title, i.e. there is no mechanism for revising the plat to reflect the lots as augmented by extending their sidelines across the gore?
clearcut, post: 437186, member: 297 wrote: I’ve spoken with several of my peers now about this pridicklement and find it interesting the variance in perspectives.
Gene and Dave both mentioned the idea that there may be a strip that has title still vested in the original subdivider or his/her heirs.
The California Land Surveyors Association issued an exam study guide a few years back that if I remember correctly was put together in cahoots with the Board of Registration. My understanding is the sample problems in that guide were actual problems from prior exams. I think that my memory of its origin is true partly because sample problem # 2 struck me as being exactly a problem I had on my exam many eons ago.
Anyways, what is interesting is that the CLSA exam guide also provides an answer sheet which somewhat incredibly appears to provide what is “THE” correct answer for the following:
A subdivision is filed showning one exterior boundary being coincident with a section line. A retracement survey reveals the subdivision exterior monuments were not placed on the section line. The answer sheet states that a triangular piece of land where the subdivision came up short of the section line still has title vested in the original subdivider.
I’m sure I got that problem correct way back when as my experience in private land titles at that point was primarily learned from Brown, being my work up to that point had been exclusively doing PLSS work for the BLM.In my situation one side of the N-S centerline are deed cuts which call to the N-S centerline, but it can be deduced the deed writer was guided by the location of said line by reliance on work derived from the ’48 private survey.
On the other side of the N-S centerline is a subdivision that shows said centerline as located by the BLM.Each of the subdividers obviously intended to subdivide their lands to the extent they owned, i.e. the N-S centerline.
The ’74 subdivision line is well marked, fenced and considered the line by all sides.
At this point there is no dispute. My clients hired me to find their sidelines between the unfenced deed splits. As far as they and their neighbors are concerned, the N-S centerline boundary is settled.
I’m considering a well written narrative based on risk assessment and common law principles of harmoneous relationship, while still telling a tale of 2 lines.
Yes, it is somewhat of a dilemma. I have an unpublished case from the 1980s which deals with the same issue. There the strip is a fairly uniform 100’+ wide strip which the Court ruled was vested in the original subdivider. Fact questions tend to defy “correct” and “incorrect” answers.
Kent McMillan, post: 437187, member: 3 wrote: I’ve got three and a half questions:
1. I realize that this isn’t part of the facts of the situation you describe, but if the monument that appears to likely be the original South 1/4 corner could be definitely identified with more than reasonable certainty, i.e. if there were bearing trees proving it up or if the monument itself was of a character that was unmistakably that placed by the original survey in 1860, would your opinion be different?
2. Under California law, is a deed that describes lands by reference to a map that mistakenly omits a narrow strip of land owned by the grantor that was clearly intended to be conveyed (such as the instant case) insufficient to convey title to that strip? That is, do the owners of lots on the East side of the subdivision have a claim of title, under their present deeds, to the land between their lots as platted and the original N-S centerline of the section, (as would be the case in Texas under the doctrine of strips and gores)?
3. As a general principal, do surveying mistakes such as that apparently made by the BLM always create uncertainty as to the original location of a line if the original evidence of that location is not subject to doubt? At what point are mistakes no longer merely mistakes?
3-1/2. In the scenario you mention, is the real issue that it would simply be too much trouble to deal with the gore of land lying East of the subdivision as a thing to which either the subdivider or his successors have title, i.e. there is no mechanism for revising the plat to reflect the lots as augmented by extending their sidelines across the gore?
As to question 2: California has not enunciated a specific strips and gores doctrine such as Texas has. California tends to treat boundary more into the fact realm which tends to not be subject to strict rule making.
Dave Karoly, post: 437190, member: 94 wrote: Yes, it is somewhat of a dilemma. I have an unpublished case from the 1980s which deals with the same issue. There the strip is a fairly uniform 100’+ wide strip which the Court ruled was vested in the original subdivider. Fact questions tend to defy “correct” and “incorrect” answers.
The salient facts in this case (under Texas case law) would appear to me to be:
(a) that the gore in question is a tract that most likely cannot be used as a separate thing and
(b) the subdivider did not clearly express any intention to reserve it from subdivision and sale.The rationale being that the separate ownership of long, narrow strips of land of no separate use is, as a matter of public policy such a bad idea that conveyances should be construed in such a way to eliminate the strips unless there is a clear expression in the conveyance of a reservation or contrary intention.
Log in to reply.