This is based on an old case but isn't identical to it.
1960: Gray deeds to White: Parcel 1: The southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Fractional Section 6 (which happens to be more than a mile wide). Parcel 2: The east 5 acres of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Fractional Section 6.
There is a road which runs north through the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter (see diagram). White farms up to the road on his west boundary for many years without objection from anyone.
1975: Gray Deeds the rest of his holdings in the southwest quarter of Fractional Section 6 to Black.
1980: White Deeds his two Parcels to Brown.
2010: Black has a Survey made in order to divide up his property in the Southwest quarter of Fractional Section 6. The surveyor sets monuments on the centerline of the Southwest quarter per the Manual and monuments on the west line of the 5 acre strip (the pencil shaded area on the diagram).
If the southwest quarter is divided in half (contrary to the Manual) then there just happens to be 5 acres between that north-south centerline and the north-south road (the orange shaded area on the diagram). Note Brown and White before him always thought the north-south road is their west boundary, they farmed it that way and no one ever objected until the 2010 Survey.
When Black asserts his title per the Survey and starts to build a fence Brown sues.
Brown hires his own Surveyor as an Expert.
What should the Expert's opinion be on:
1) Where is the west boundary of Brown?
2) Why?
I forgot one thing: There is a 1950 Survey on file of the south half of the southwest quarter which shows the acreage and the distances (which closely match the 2010 Survey). The 1950 Survey did not show or set the west 1/16th corner on the Section line or the southwest 1/16th corner.
One question that interests me is what the history of the road was, i.e. whether it was in place in 1960 at the time of the conveyance of Parcels 1 and 2 to White. I would assume it was from the facts you mention.
If it was, it would appear that Gray's obvious intention was to convey all of his land lying East of the road. This intention is expressed by the subsequent acts of White in using and cultivating the land up to the road as a landowner, not as a tenant of Gray and Gray's failure to eject White from possession. This intention is consistent with the nature of Parcel 2 as a narrow strip of land that I assume wasn't explained as other than what the parties thought was necessary to cover the remnant East of the road. Otherwise, one is expected to believe that Grey intended to reserve a useless strip of land along the East side of the road severed from the body of the remainder of his land at a time when the land was in agricultural use.
I'm not sure from the facts provided how much latitude California courts are willing to exercise in interpreting descriptions of fractional parts, but I would think that the term "half" might be understood to have an equitable rather than technical (i.e. per GLO Manual of Instructions) meaning in California. So, if White owned only the South 1/2 of the part of the section, the East half by area may be claimed as a possible interpretation of the language of the conveyance to White in 1960 as the SE 1/4. That is also consistent with other circumstances of the transaction.
That is, was the description of Parcel 1 unambiguous or did it admit an alternate construction?
Your retracement is OBVIOUSLY flawed based solely on the GAUDINESS of your North arrow.... actually...i look foreward to reading this thread on a bigger platform...
The road.
Intent and long term Agricultural useage. I am assuming this is in the agricultural area of my home town.
Pablo B-)
Lovely little problem. Intelligent people COULD argue in favor of either solution.
Personally, I would investigate like crazy before deciding. Why was the road put where it was? Why has no one challenged the farming activity? Is anyone available to provide parol evidence either way? Was the Government method quarter-quarter ever held as a tract separate from the adjacent lot and/or remainder of the quarter? Has there ever been another split in that quarter that might suggest an answer to the question? Who gave up the land for the road? Does the road line up with anything in the adjacent section? Is there knowledge of other similar quarter splits locally where the Government method was ignored?
Generally technical terms are interpreted as having the meaning given them in trade or profession of which they are part. But, this is a special case where the term does not have its regular meaning, and there is no evidence they had a surveyor involved who might have explained the normal meaning or what it means in section 6. And, if it can be shown the parties understood and used a technical term in a way inconsistent with its normal meaning, then the parties meaning of the term will hold over the accepted definition in the trade or profession.
The subsequent actions and non-actions of the respective parties corroborate that the intent of the phrase was consistent with a general definition of 1/4, which is half of the south half.
The location of the road is further corroboration of the intent of the language as it gives a reason for conveying the additional 5 acres.
Or, if you prefer, the line has been established by the owners so set pins along the road and be done with it;-)
> Generally technical terms are interpreted as having the meaning given them in trade or profession of which they are part. But, this is a special case where the term does not have its regular meaning, and there is no evidence they had a surveyor involved who might have explained the normal meaning or what it means in section 6. And, if it can be shown the parties understood and used a technical term in a way inconsistent with its normal meaning, then the parties meaning of the term will hold over the accepted definition in the trade or profession.
Yes, that is the clearest basis for deciding the above situation: a simple construction of the language of the grant by using words and phrases in their usual and ordinary senses in the absence of evidence that a technical one was intended. That is a broad, well recognized principle. The question of which sense of "SE 1/4 of SW 1/4" was intended is answered by considering the surrounding circumstances of the transaction, i.e. which of the shapes and locations of the tracts resulting from either is more consistent with what the parties would ordinarily intend.
1/2 by area according to Woods v Mandrilla. I cannot tell from the sketch where that line would fall. Aliqout parts would be 20 and 20 chains, but this section is longer so it wounld be something like 20 and 39 by government rules. And then you would be looking at 29.5 and 29.5 under case law and then add the 5 acres for parcel 2 so that would nominally be 32.
Many years of farming might provide an easement right to continue the same type of activity, also they likely have a private access easement right to use the road. All the elements would have to be in place to prevail in an AP case and I did not see them presented here....
:good:
"1975: Gray Deeds the rest of his holdings in the southwest quarter of Fractional Section 6 to Black."
If that is really what the deed says, Gray knew he didn't have a full 1/4 left.
> 1/2 by area according to Woods v Mandrilla. I cannot tell from the sketch where that line would fall. Aliqout parts would be 20 and 20 chains, but this section is longer so it wounld be something like 20 and 39 by government rules. And then you would be looking at 29.5 and 29.5 under case law and then add the 5 acres for parcel 2 so that would nominally be 32.
Since the description dealt with the SE 1/4 of an approximately rectangular tract, the question would be how the phrase "SE 1/4" would be ordinarily understood and whether that was how the parties to the 1960 conveyance understood it or whether they had some technical definition in mind.
If "1/4" when applied to a tract of land means one of four equal parts into which the tract may be divided and "SE 1/4" when applied to an approximately rectangular tract oriented approximately cardinal is understood to one of four parts into which tract is divided by lines connecting the midpoints of opposite sides, then it would be contrary to logic to think that the parties had some technical meaning only recognized by surveyors in mind when the deed was drawn up.
Bingo Kent
>
> When Black asserts his title per the Survey and starts to build a fence Brown sues.
>
> Brown hires his own Surveyor as an Expert.]
Is it only Black, Brown, and two surveyors that are involved? How far into litigation has it gone? Are White or Grey still around?
DDSM
Dave,
Don't leave us hanging!
DDSM
This is hypothetical...White and Gray are no longer around.
In my scenario the litigation just started.
>
> In my scenario the litigation just started.
Advocates seeking Surveyors (advocates)?
With out any other evidence, I would suggest established boundary.
DDSM
(Arkansas)
