Disclaimer: My PLSS knowledge is based on books and the knowledge shared by the members of this forum. While I have surveyed in a sectional area, it is western Kentucky which is a state developed sectional area that (at least where I have been) has been largely usurped by metes and bounds.
The MI post was interesting in that it showed very clearly the problems you folks in those perfect little squares deal with on a daily basis that some of us metes and bounds guys might not appreciate as much. A couple of things came to mind when I was looking at the plats and descriptions that were posted.
1) In actual practice, how do you work with the descriptions that incorporate both specific dimensions that are clearly used because that is the number that the perfect aliquot part would have and an aliquot call? Barring any other items like occupation, is there any interpretation of the intent to be an aliquot part or does the introduction of the specific dimension become the controlling factor?
For example, in the 2 plats that were posted, one used the exact dimensions from one end and the other used the exact dimension from the other end of the aliqout part, letting the short fall into the neighboring property. To me, it appears that there was an assumption of perfection made by someone not in the know. Now, either someone is short or everyone is short. Does that always go back to who received that dimensioned call first (barring other reasons for the line location) despite knowing it was an incorrect assumption of perfection in the beginning?
2) It looked like one of the surveys may have tied into the 1/4 corners, but did not label the overall distance which would have showed the short in the neighbors property. It seems that overall distance should be noted as it ties a monument used in the determination of the boundary. Is it typical or unusual in your specific area of practice to see that overall dimension left off?
Log in to reply.