I have done a couple surveys in the past year that were located in the fractional southwest quarter of section 7. In these quarters the GLO map shows a north half and a south half. The recent survey I did showed the GLO acres at 62.04 acres in the north half and 62.01 acres in the south half. The combined acres match the acres on record at the County Assessor's Office.
I was contacted by the newly appointed assistant to the County Assessor questioning why I don't have a SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4. Their records show the SW Quarter broke down into quarters.?ÿ
I explained that I did not use the SW of SW because the original survey (the GLO) was not broken down that way. Was I correct in this matter??ÿ
There is a survey in the south half of the northwest quarter of the same section 7 that did not have much effect on my survey, but the survey (completed in 2017) created a parcel named 'Lot 1 of the SW Fraction Quarter of the NW Quarter.'?ÿ
Which parcel designation is best to be used?
Thanks,
Dan
You are correct. If the GLO plat shows N1/2 and S1/2 of a 1/4 then the 1/4 1/4 never existed... assuming that the Patents are for N1/2 and S1/2?ÿ
show the assessor the GLO plat, and the Patent plat too if there is one
What Peter said, plat and patents. You can access both on the web, or at least most of them, I suppose there may be some not scanned into the system. I would expect the "SWSW" to be Lot 4. So the correct description would be Lot 4 and the SE1/4SW1/4 of Section 7. However, if the patent did say the S1/2SW1/4, then I would go with it. ?ÿ
I found some patents where the Plat shows Lot 4 of Section 5 (for example) but the Patent reads NW1/4 of NW1/4 of Section 5 (along with some other squares) but when you add up the acreages they match the plat.?ÿ In my opinion, in the context of the grant that is identical to Lot 4.?ÿ I went through the entire Township north and west tier, there were two patents like that circa 1890, the rest were done correctly.?ÿ I think there was some confusion in the office around that time.
I see the BLM do it both ways. In my opinion it is clearer to call them lots. At the same time if you pull the plat and notes it wont matter...
?ÿ
If the section wasn't lotted by the GLO than all the aliqout parts within the section were created when the plat was approved. So the SW1/4SW1/4 does exist, but if neither the patent or a subsequent deeds?ÿ called for the quarter quarters, I don't see what benifit there is in showing it.?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
I see the BLM do it both ways. In my opinion it is clearer to call them lots. At the same time if you pull the plat and notes it wont matter...
A portion of a section is either a lot or an aliqout part, it cant be both. Only when what would usually be a lot on the north or west boundary of a township happens to be 40 acres is there a choice in what to call it, because then the procedure to locate the lot and the aliqout part are identical.?ÿ?ÿ
I see the BLM do it both ways. In my opinion it is clearer to call them lots. At the same time if you pull the plat and notes it wont matter...
A portion of a section is either a lot or an aliqout part, it cant be both. Only when what would usually be a lot on the north or west boundary of a township happens to be 40 acres is there a choice in what to call it, because then the procedure to locate the lot and the aliqout part are identical.?ÿ?ÿ
Exactly. what The Original Patent says controls, forever and always. rewriting descriptions using other terms is a stupid bastardization and just confuses Title (and some Surveyors unfortunately).
However, some times after land passes to Private holders (after original Patent) odd terms are used. That's OK, but remember that "the Manual" then no longer is the correct reference.
While I agree that once created it doesnt change, my point still exists.
The BLM sometines uses the aliquot designation where lots exist. These arent exact 40s either. It is not uncommon to see a lot patented using the name of the aliquot part, followed by an acreage according to the plat. If you dont pull the plat and notes you wont know how to properly subdivide it (if by chance it hasnt been broken out already).?ÿ
?ÿ
For purposes of Title the description identifies what land is being conveyed.?ÿ For purposes of location (and size and shape) the description is part of the evidence applied in context of the rest of the evidence available.
Otherwise if the GLO patented one quarter-quarter by aliquot description and the adjoining one by Lot number there would be a conflict in Title which, in my opinion, does not exist because the intention of the system was to avoid such conflicts.?ÿ Taking the descriptions in their proper context avoids the issue.
Where the lot is shown on the Plat, the identification of that unit of land refers to the lot unless the contrary is clearly and manifestly shown by evidence (such as an established boundary at the midpoint or a statement included with the description calling for the contrary interpretation).
I see the BLM do it both ways. In my opinion it is clearer to call them lots. At the same time if you pull the plat and notes it wont matter...
A portion of a section is either a lot or an aliqout part, it cant be both. Only when what would usually be a lot on the north or west boundary of a township happens to be 40 acres is there a choice in what to call it, because then the procedure to locate the lot and the aliqout part are identical.?ÿ?ÿ
Exactly. what The Original Patent says controls, forever and always. rewriting descriptions using other terms is a stupid bastardization and just confuses Title (and some Surveyors unfortunately).
However, some times after land passes to Private holders (after original Patent) odd terms are used. That's OK, but remember that "the Manual" then no longer is the correct reference.
OH BOY?ÿ you ain't kidding!?ÿ When I worked at the County, I was constantly bombarded by "metes and Bounds" requests, from the county Assessors Clerk, and other staff.?ÿ When I asked if they knew what the aliquot system(PLSS) was they looked at me like I had just spoken Russian.?ÿ Sad but not uncommon, especially in smaller towns/counties.?ÿ?ÿ
Local demands to ruin an aliquot description with bearings and distances is a whole nother animal.
The plain fact remains. The notes, plat and lines run on the ground are part of the patent just as if they were written on its face. While the patent terminology is important, it will not change the plat or corners on the ground.?ÿ
Ive run into this and i tell the story on the map. Sadly we have people who ignore all of the other evidence and decide to 'fix' things by resubdividing the 'correct' way. A simple label of 1/4 1/4 (patent) and Lot 4 (plat and occupation) prevents that (or should). It harms nothing.
all of Lot 12 and the South West?ÿ 1/4 of Section 86, Township 5 North, Range 3 West, Mount Grande Base and Meridian, as surveyed by GLO on .... and shown on the Official Township Plat dated .....; being further described as follows:
Beginning at xxx thence along the exterior boundary of said Lot 12 and the South West?ÿ 1/4 of Section 86, the following 12 courses:
B&D and description of monuments, etc. if you want.
B&D and call to GLO aliquot description too, I do
etc.
as shown on (your recorded map) filed for record in Book & Page, County Seat
=====
you can have your cake and eat it too
When forced into that spot I end with, 'This description includes all of such and such and no other property'.
you ever use Mt Grande Base and Humble-pie Meridian?
