Doing a little project in a PLSS lot. Previously ?? of the Lot has been subdivided and platted. So what's left has been deeded as the SW ?¬ of the NW ?¬ of the NW ?¬, Section 2, somewhere in Utah
The boundary description of the previous subdivision has calls to the 1/16 lines outside of lot and then the 1/64 lines to go around the remainder portion described above.
The lot is 20 chains east/west and 20.2 chains north/south. So is is proper to call to 1/64 lines and would it be 10 chains north from the south side of the lot or ?« the distance? The plat has distances which match markers found. If they had just left out the calls to the 1/64 line it would all be good as one owner owned the whole lot at the time. I can't make it work either at 10 chains or ?« the distance for the 1/64 line east/west.
I'd tend to hold the subdivision plat and found markers just need to ignore the calls to the 1/64 lines to make it work. Generally a call to a boundary rules over the bearing and distance but here the call goes against all the other evidence. Then there is a aliquot description used to convey the remainder of the lot. Jefferson's great idea, I'm not so sure!
Any thoughts?
I would do everything I could to make it match the legal and the monuments. 😉
The divider owned the entire Lot 4 (I assume) and he divided it up a certain way setting monuments, I would accept them as the property line AND the 1/64th line, unless you can't for some reason. I've followed newish BLM surveys with 64th and 256th monuments and they aren't perfect breakdowns, I accepted those as marking the deed lines.
LRDay, post: 450335, member: 571 wrote: Doing a little project in a PLSS lot. Previously ?? of the Lot has been subdivided and platted. So what's left has been deeded as the SW ?¬ of the NW ?¬ of the NW ?¬, Section 2, somewhere in Utah
The boundary description of the previous subdivision has calls to the 1/16 lines outside of lot and then the 1/64 lines to go around the remainder portion described above.
The lot is 20 chains east/west and 20.2 chains north/south. So is is proper to call to 1/64 lines and would it be 10 chains north from the south side of the lot or ?« the distance? The plat has distances which match markers found. If they had just left out the calls to the 1/64 line it would all be good as one owner owned the whole lot at the time. I can't make it work either at 10 chains or ?« the distance for the 1/64 line east/west.
I'd tend to hold the subdivision plat and found markers just need to ignore the calls to the 1/64 lines to make it work. Generally a call to a boundary rules over the bearing and distance but here the call goes against all the other evidence. Then there is a aliquot description used to convey the remainder of the lot. Jefferson's great idea, I'm not so sure!
Any thoughts?
Jefferson (and those who built on his work) isnt the source of the issue, but that's anither thread.
If you have monuments and long standing occupation I dont see much of a problem there. The origin of the issue is someone breaking down a non-aliquot entity (government lot) and calling it by a description that does not exist. There is no 64th line in a Lot...
If I were to find long-standing monuments, and the method used to set the corners were a reasonable interpretation of the description, I would tend to accept those monuments. They're "original" subdivision corners. If I find what I consider a typo in a description (for instance NW instead of SE) I would say "I found the error" and use it. If it appears the intent was to call to 1/64th
thebionicman, post: 450351, member: 8136 wrote: Jefferson (and those who built on his work) isnt the source of the issue, but that's anither thread.
If you have monuments and long standing occupation I dont see much of a problem there. The origin of the issue is someone breaking down a non-aliquot entity (government lot) and calling it by a description that does not exist. There is no 64th line in a Lot...
There is some reliance on the subdivision lines but no long standing occupation, subdivision, 2003, not 20 years ago. I'm inclined to accept the survey and monuments. Might not make it past the county reviewer though. I'll give my opinion and see where it goes from there. Guy owned, it surveyed and subdivided it, sold it as such, should be the end of story, they just botched the title documents all up.
Yeah, I'm not to whippy on a 1/64 line in a government lot, or calling it an aliquot part instead of the lot. I see it all the time though.
LRDay, post: 450335, member: 571 wrote: I'd tend to hold the subdivision plat and found markers just need to ignore the calls to the 1/64 lines to make it work.
I would too, and agree with Mighty Moe. Right or wrong if the whole thing blows up the platted Subdivision boundary will control.
Courts have a tendency to not upset established platted Subdivisions regardless of the circumstances.
😎
If the existing monuments were placed with the intent that they mark the 1/64th lines and were placed from appropriate control, then I'd say the monumented line(s) is (are) the 1/64th line(s), regardless of whether they fit the mathematical "should be" location based on measurements of the section and 1/4 corners.
Appropriate control in this case would be the established 1/16th lines/corners or next smallest established aliquot divisions within the 1/4 section. Unless the previous establishment of any of these lines were made from incorrect control or a more than minor deviation from proper methods, they are the true aliquot divisions, regardless of the quality of the measurements made to place them.
"A decision to set aside previously fixed local survey legal subdivision corners must be supported by evidence that goes beyond mere demonstration of technical error, reasonable discrepancies between former and new measurement, and less than strict adherence to restoration and subdivision rules."
U.S. Department of the Interior. 2009. Manual of Surveying Instructions, Sec. 3-137 (p.74, 2d column, 4th paragraph)
eapls2708, post: 450445, member: 589 wrote: If the existing monuments were placed with the intent that they mark the 1/64th lines and were placed from appropriate control, then I'd say the monumented line(s) is (are) the 1/64th line(s), regardless of whether they fit the mathematical "should be" location based on measurements of the section and 1/4 corners.
Appropriate control in this case would be the established 1/16th lines/corners or next smallest established aliquot divisions within the 1/4 section. Unless the previous establishment of any of these lines were made from incorrect control or a more than minor deviation from proper methods, they are the true aliquot divisions, regardless of the quality of the measurements made to place them.
"A decision to set aside previously fixed local survey legal subdivision corners must be supported by evidence that goes beyond mere demonstration of technical error, reasonable discrepancies between former and new measurement, and less than strict adherence to restoration and subdivision rules."
U.S. Department of the Interior. 2009. Manual of Surveying Instructions, Sec. 3-137 (p.74, 2d column, 4th paragraph)
I concur that the evidence (monuments) are likely the best evidence of the intent. While it might seem unimportant the '64th' issue should be addressed.
In essence you have no established method to evaluate for 'intentional departure from sound practice' as there is no practice for breaking down a Government Lot. There are no 64th lines through it. Trying to make it so risks the 'mathemagician' rejection of an established line. The call indicates an attempt to misapply rules designed for a different situation and should not over rule found evidence..
I find errors all the time in legal descriptions which take the liberty to judge on. A perfect example is a call to the NE and it's clearly meant to be NW (for instance). Calling out a typo and accepting longstanding monuments is a kind of norm. Although I can see where some my have issue with an aliquot call vs. a lot call, and the subdivision thereof. I would make my case why you're doing what you're doing right on your plat.
I have to ask, did anyone actually call out these lines as 1/64th lines? If they are 1/4s of a Lot there isn't anything to stop an owner from calling it out that way. Of course sounds like they may have written the SW4NW4NW4 instead of the SW4 of Lot4.
If the owner owned the whole NW4 or only Lot 4 there could be two different solutions for that description. I would look at the title chain first.
I think think you need to just a dept the monuments. The 1/64th line does not exist inside the lot, so you can't put it in its proper place. The only thing you can do is try to decipher the intent of the the subdivide. Unless there is a strong indication that they did not intend the surveyed line, that would seem to be the best evidence.
Don't call for 1/64th lines in your plat....
MightyMoe, post: 450561, member: 700 wrote: I have to ask, did anyone actually call out these lines as 1/64th lines? If they are 1/4s of a Lot there isn't anything to stop an owner from calling it out that way. Of course sounds like they may have written the SW4NW4NW4 instead of the SW4 of Lot4.
If the owner owned the whole NW4 or only Lot 4 there could be two different solutions for that description. I would look at the title chain first.
Yes, all the lines in the subdivision boundary description have a call to a section line, 1/16 line, 1/64 line or highway right of way line.
I'm not going to post someone else's plat, I could send you a copy.
