-
The Doctrine of “Straight Forewardism”
One of the more “Bad” doctrines of of deed interpretation, is the doctrine of “Straightforewardism”.
Example:
Deed says:
Part of the SE1/4-SW1/4, S-T-R
Begin at the SE corner of the SE1/4-SW1/4, run north 570′;
West 210′;
South 570′;
East 210′ to POB.
Surveyor, or “Practitioner” gets on TRUE north, goes those dimensions. Resulting that he partially runs over into the SW1/4-SE1/4, at the NE corner, And, leaves a sliver at the SW corner, where he does NOT go all the way to the south line of the SE1/4-SW1/4.
He has “Followed the deed” Literally… ignoring the fact that he should go with the 40 lines, and section lines, and parallel with those as well.
Another example, is where deed says:
Part of the SW1/4-SW1/4 desc as follows:
East 500′; N500′; W 500′; S500′, and the deed to the east says:
Begin at the SW corner of said SW1/4-SW1/4;
E 500 to POB; N 500′; E820′; S500′; W820′ to POB
BUT
the SW1/4-SW1/4 is SHORT EW of the assumed 1320′, and it is 1298′.
So, the SURVEYOR runs over into the SE1/4-SW1/4 by about 22′.
I’m saying that being too straightforeward in your approach, ignores reality.
We are supposed to always look beyond the straightforward approach, and see the whole picture.
I’m sure that most of you other fellow surveyors could contribute your story, where somebody went “Straightforward” instead of into the truth of the issue.
I’ve been GUILTY of being too straightforward myself. Missed an important detail.
Nate
-
12 Replies
-
We have encountered situations where a quarter section was split into a north half and south half situation by agreeable parties on both sides. The catch is that they went out together and measured 1320 feet from what they thought was the south line of the section (probably middle of road) and then built a fence. The fellow on the north ended up with a little extra or a little shortage because they did not even consider that 2640 was a generalized number that only applies in a perfect world. Had they measured from what they thought was the north line of the quarter they would have had a different result.
-
I think most of us in the PLSS system have been guilty of this at least once in our careers, especially those that are members of the 80 chain club.
I’m currently trying to sort out conflicting surveys in Section 1 (T & R are irrelevant) where surveyor “A” held two 3/8″ rebars as the SW & NW corners of the section while the surveyor “B” found a pipe marking the east 1/4 corner, and set the NE & SE section corners @ 2640′ from the pipe. Surveyor “A”‘s dimensions fit within a few tenths of the GLO dimensions while surveyor “B”‘s calculated section corners cause an overlap into Section 36 above and Section 12 below (78.65 chains by GLO). Luckily, this is in rural Mississippi and nothing was constructed using the sectionalized breakdown from Surveyor “B”.
The moral of this story is, refer to the GLO plats and notes before hanging your hat on a sectional breakdown!!!
-
It’s difficult to believe someone actually surveys that way Nate. Is that prevalent there, it’s devoid of common sense.
-
There are counties in Arkansas, where it??s common.
and, there are practitioners who are guilty.
Regularly.
N -
I am extremely straightforward (others call it being an a***ole) but still don??t follow the ??Doctrine of Straightforwardism.? I guess if you have no other doctrines, then DSF syndrome sets in. A long long time ago there were the ??Doctrine of Cardinal Direction? and the ??Doctrine of How to Measure Like an 1820 Surveyor?. These doctrines kept you from getting off line and from falling short (others call that??) Oh never mind.
The “Doctrine of Cardinal Direction” says that East or West is the same bearing as the north boundary of that section portion you just left from and North or South is the same bearing of the east boundary.
The “Doctrine of How to Measure Like an 1820 Surveyor” says that if all of the sections measure 4 four feet long, than 1320 feet is actually 1321 feet.
-
they went out together and measured 1320 feet from what they thought was the south line of the section (probably middle of road) and then built a fence.
My uncle did something like that to split (E-W halves) my Grandma’s 80 with my dad when they inherited it. I doubt he used a tape; maybe just counted fence posts? Dad was in poor health and just said “whatever.” Uncle put a dividing fence.
You can easily see on Google Earth uncle shorted himself about 20 ft on the south end and maybe went a few feet long on the north side.
I made a more accurate measurement some years later with about the same result. Nobody involved would want to move the fence.
. -
Sounds like hitting the ??easy button?? because to do a proper survey would mean client would have to pay for a proper survey and they can??t or won??t and back then the land wasn??t worth that much and no Javad.
Willy -
This is common practice in Northern California aliquot resurveys and it is always challenging to determine what they mean by “North”.
Similar to this, I’ve got a cousin who interprets 1920 deed calls of “parallel to the street” by running a line precisely parallel to some right of way monuments set by 1960s and later surveys. In doing so he calls off (by about 5 degrees) the bearings of every sideline fence on the block and creates new encroachments for about 6 or 8 adjoining lots when his client builds to his staked parallel lines
Job security
-
I have mentioned this before but it’s worth repeating. Over 25 years ago, two brothers who were nearing 80 at the time wanted me to lay out a straight line so they could build a fence. They were the only two heirs to their parents’ home farm where these fellows both grew up. One was pushy and the other usually said “OK” to whatever the other one wanted. The pushy one wanted the west half of the southwest quarter and was willing to let the other brother have the east half, but, on his terms. The pushy brother was going to end up with the old house and farmstead but the road along the west side of the property had a 25 or 30-foot easement. What they wanted was for me to shoot the two corner posts on the south fence (north side of road easement for an east-west road) and the two corner posts on the north line of quarter (probable quarter section line), then divide each of those lines evenly in half and connected the midpoints. There was no true survey being done, just where to build a fence that would satisfy the two parties. Sometime later they finally settled the estate. The fence is where they wanted it to be. The deeds, however, make no mention of a fence, simply West Half of the Southwest Quarter and East Half of the Southwest Quarter. Both old boys have been deceased for quite some time. The ground then passed to one son of the fellow on the west and one son of the fellow on the east. The sons, thankfully, know what their fathers did despite what their deeds say. Doubt that I will live long enough to get hired to go back and do a true survey with two metes and bounds tracts as the result as their generation is my generation.
-
This is common practice in Northern California aliquot resurveys and it is always challenging to determine what they mean by “North”.
Similar to this, I’ve got a cousin who interprets 1920 deed calls of “parallel to the street” by running a line precisely parallel to some right of way monuments set by 1960s and later surveys. In doing so he calls off (by about 5 degrees) the bearings of every sideline fence on the block and creates new encroachments for about 6 or 8 adjoining lots when his client builds to his staked parallel lines
Job security
In the town of Weott in Humboldt County Paul Schmook (1940s Land Surveyor out of Scotia) took the Deed descriptions and laid them out how he thought they ??should be,? only vaguely following the Title Company generated description. On his diagram of the block wherever he has a black dot is often found an old rusty 3/4? pipe. All the fences line up with his map, not the descriptions which fit together perfectly.
That is one of the weirdest things I??ve seen surveying.
-
He has “Followed the deed” Literally… ignoring the fact that he should go with the 40 lines, and section lines, and parallel with those as well.
I almost made that mistake when I was fresh out of school and didn’t know any better, but once the PLS explained what was going on with those descriptions it hasn’t been a problem.
-
In the town of Weott in Humboldt County Paul Schmook (1940s Land Surveyor out of Scotia) took the Deed descriptions and laid them out how he thought they ??should be,? only vaguely following the Title Company generated description. On his diagram of the block wherever he has a black dot is often found an old rusty 3/4? pipe. All the fences line up with his map, not the descriptions which fit together perfectly.
That is one of the weirdest things I??ve seen surveying.
Paul Schmook was exactly the first person I thought of when I read the OP. He is famous for writing those deeds that read ??North? but aren??t exactly North??.. His later work (once he got punchy) is more entertaining than the early stuff. I??ve retraced a few Schmook deeds and they certainly can get bizarre??..
He??s not the only one that does it though. Fortunately his old work maps are accessible and often include coordinates and monuments to help tell the tale. Some of the deeds written by the other guys are very challenging to make heads or tails of.
I have worked in Weott and I saw your State Parks survey last year while writing a proposal. I didn??t get the job, most of the private citizens there can??t afford to pay a surveyor to solve these puzzles.
Log in to reply.