Restoration of BLM Corners

"Finding the original lines and corners is a responsibility of a land surveyor. If a previously established corner or line is not visible on the ground, the surveyor tries to find evidence of the corner or line. Only after exhaustive examination and research can a conclusion be reached that the corner or line is lost. If there is no record that a corner or line has been previously established the surveyor searches for any evidence of the corner or line having been previously established. If such evidence exists the facts are uncovered and the rules and principles of acceptable corner evidence are applied before concluding that the corner or line is missing."

Has hell frozen over?

"The Manual describes what circumstances would overturn a local survey. The local survey is to be accepted unless there is evidence of gross error or evidence of substantial non-conformance with the principles of corner recovery, restoration, and section subdivision."

Hell must have frozen over!!

Ya Brian, but, some actually believe that your quotes are only about those corners that were established by the GLO/BLM and would never pertain to those section subdivision corners that were established by somebody else....or heaven forbid, the landowner!

If you really consider the rationale that only Chapter 3 (and there are those who believe this) can be used for subdividing a section, then it just seems like it has to be BLM that has to do the subdivision of sections and ignore all previous subdivision surveys. See the Florida Appeals case of Rivers to prove my point.

So what does that mean to you private surveyors? Do you forget everything you have learned about protecting land tenure and if you are subdividing a section, you have to ignore all evidence of previous established aliquot part corner monuments or wait for the BLM to do the subdivision survey?

Seems like a predicament to me......or else just maybe the Manual Chapter 3 has the requirements for the subdivision of the section for the first time (original) when there is no existing evidence of the previously established corners?

Seems to me like some just like to make this difficult, when it really isn't!

Keith

Read the quotes again Keith. They specifically say "If there is no record that a corner or line has been previously established the surveyor searches for any evidence of the corner or line having been previously established. If such evidence exists the facts are uncovered and the rules and principles of acceptable corner
evidence are applied before concluding that the corner or line is missing."

Doesn't the GLO/BLM have to leave a "record?

Hey Brian, you are right, but:

Explain then, or somebody else could, that Chapter 3 requirements can only be used in subdividing a section?

Keith

> Doesn't the GLO/BLM have to leave a "record?

GLO/BLM records are not perfect. There may be missing records. In any case, a corner established or reestablished by a local surveyor won't always be evidenced by a record.

Explain then, or somebody else could, that Chapter 3 requirements can only be used in subdividing a section?
>

They either don't know the laws and/or the Manuals and/or they are members of a certain state b...... naw, I won't go there 😉

Chap 3 requirements must be followed if the land owner intended to use aliquot part descriptors.

If a lawyer used aliquot part descriptors when writing the deed but the surveyor did not follow Chap 3 requirements, the lawyer was wrong and the description is misleading.

We have no obligation to perpetuate lawyer's defective deeds nor use such defective descriptions to attempt to replace missing monumentation.

Richard Schaut

What if the Section was not laid out exactly perfectly according to the instructions.

Should we just entirely abandon any reference to the S.T.R.M. in the lawyer's defective description?

Mr. Schaut may be correct in that Chapter 3 would be appropriate if the section had not been previously subdivided.

If it has (as would seem evident by the Subject line :RESTORATION...") he would do well to review Chapters 5-7 of the 2009 Manual or 5-6 and some of 7 in the 1973 Manual.
I would encourage him to read more than a few select paragraphs that support his narrow view of the PLSS world.
DJJ

Mr. Karoly, et al

There is no reason to 'abandon' STRM when you understand the reasons for the instructions the BLM surveyors must obey in Chap 6 of the '73 manual to correct inaccurate aliqout part descriptions by substituting M&B w/ tract # designators and the provision for document reformation; except for the fact that, when providing a service to private citizens, we follow state laws to correct inaccurate descriptions.

It is really simple if you can follow a rational thought process. If the physical evidence is not where the description says it should be, the description is wrong and must be corrected so that future surveyors will not be misled.

Physical evidence controls, not words on a piece of paper.

Richard Schaut

Mr. Karoly, et al

Let's say there is a physically monumented 1/16th line which (surprise-surprise) is not perfectly in compliance with Chapter 3 due to errors or whatever reason like 100% of monumented 1/16th lines.

That IS the boundary between the Aliquot parts on either side therefore the property owners have not abandoned the aliquot descriptions but they have implemented an imperfect solution nonetheless they have established the 1/16th line where it physically is located.

Mr. Schaut, et al

> ... when you understand ... the provision for document reformation ...
The reformation doctrine basically makes it impossible to "change" a description without good cause, once the original parties have chosen the words to describe a parcel. Simply "changing" a description violates the reformation doctrine.
>If the physical evidence is not where the description says it should be, the description is wrong and must be corrected so that future surveyors will not be misled.
If that were the case, every description ever devised by mankind would be subjected to change by every survey ever conducted. The result would be absolute chaos in the title record. Could you imagine what it would be like to abstract a parcel where the description of that parcel changes with every survey? The title record doesn't exist for the benefit of "future surveyors." It's there to maintain stability in land titles and to prevent fraud. Surveyors have devised their own independent record system where boundary location evidence should be perpetuated.

There is no reason (nor ability) for the surveyor to muck up the title record every time they discover new survey evidence. All they need to do is gather the evidence, document the evidence and perpetuate the evidence in the survey records so the "future surveyor" can benefit from the evidence by utilizing it, retracing it, and continuing the chain of perpetuation of any new evidence.

JBS

JB

Good post and most of us agree with it, BUT you will never convince Schault that his procedure of changing the deed description to a Tract with actual bearings and distances from fence corner to fence corner is wrong.

He has his own opinion of land surveying and takes words and phrases out of the Manual to support it, without considering the total concept of the PLSS.

And of course his recourse is to come back with insults.

And that is the way it is.

Keith

JB

I can't get over the curved bridge behind Keith.

It's the perfect avatar!

Thanks Dave

I think so too!!

I am always impressed with the Golden Gate Bridge and whenever in San Francisco, we have to go see the bridge.

It is fitting, with the curve.

Course, I have not talked about vertical curves and the bridge must be most north and south?

Keith

Stahl, et al

No wonder you get a 'brain pain' when you read law school textbook information on appraisal of title.

There is no rational basis for perpetuating an inaccurate description, period.

The US is not governed by feudal law and there is no viable 'kings writ' that perpetuates unchangable land records.

Richard Schaut

Stahl, et al

We may not be Feudal but we have more than our fair share of feuds.

I agree with Mark. In fact, it seems to me that more often than not I find corners or corner evidence of, say, a C-1/4 corner and no record. I believe all of those quoted words mean for me, that if I am doing a survey in developed land I will use local property corners, property lines, fences, occupation, and other evidence to establish where that monument used to be. It is insanity, in my humble opinion, to re-intersect the lines and set a monument if it does not agree with all of the local evidence. (Of course locate the opposing 1/4 corners and mathematically intersect the line...that is more evidence) All of these after-the-fact improvements and property corners are in essence "witnesses" or "references" to where a monument once was. (Not witness corners as used in the manual per se, I got in trouble for using that term once, but witnesses in a more dictionary definition).

The greater problem I see is when there are several monuments there to represent the same corner some without records as to their origin. It is tough on several levels. Odds are, that for every monument you see out there, there will be additional evidence that support that monument. Odds are, that the closest to fit the intersection of lines, is the most recent and not the first; since it was set with more precise instrumentation and possibly to meet more recent controlling corners which also aren't the originals. In my opinion, the primary goal in the case of multiple monuments is to discover the first one set. But also to not totally discount the other "false" corners, as property rights may have ripened based of of them as well. This problem gets back to the earlier-referenced "insanity" of setting corners at an exact intersection when you have evidence of earlier-established corners.

There.....my diatribe. And possibly a bit tangential to the original argument.