Let the Surveyor's Bible be quoted liberally in responses to this post.
Here is the situation. Section 20. First survey through the section was the establishment of a north-south Indian Treaty Boundary, say 1865. Next came the official survey of sections east of said line in 1866, resulting in a partial Section 20 as the Treaty Boundary runs approximately 200 feet west of the north-south quarter section line. Field notes report SE cor. set coming from south, then run west to Treaty boundary and set S 1/4 40 chains west of SE cor. Then run north from SE cor. 40 chains, set E 1/4, then another 40 chains north to NE cor. and set monument. Then run west to Treaty boundary and set N 1/4 40 chains west of NE cor. Center corner was not set in this section or any other adjoining sections. Assume about 1870 before remainder of Section 20 and other sections west of Treaty Boundary were surveyed. Field notes report the SW cor. was set coming from the south, then run east to existing monument on south line and Treaty Line. Run north from SW. cor 40 chains, set W 1/4, then another 40 chains north to NW cor. and set monument. Then run east to existing monument on north line and Treaty Line.
Fast forward to today. Monuments exist at at the four primary corners of the section in the center of road intersections, but, not original posts in mounds. No records can be found for any of the four quarter corners except the ancient posts and mounds which are long gone due to county road construction in late 1870's to 1880's.
What is the proper method to establish the center of section corner?
To add a bit of flavor to an otherwise dry post consider the fact that the road running south from the northeast corner to the APPARENT east quarter corner then deflects significantly to the east as it continues to the southeast corner. A straight line/ midpoint solution between the northeast and southeast corners would produce an east quarter corner 71 feet to the east and 32 feet to the north from the APPARENT east quarter corner based on longstanding physical evidence. Distance from northeast corner to APPARENT east quarter corner is close to 2640 feet. Distance from APPARENT east quarter corner to center corner set a few years ago by another company is something like 2535 feet. Said center corner monument was said to have been set based on typical crossing of lines connecting the quarter corners. We're assuming this was actually a connection of midpoints of the four theoretical straight lines connecting the four primary section corners documented. Remember there are no monuments of record or found at the quarter corners.
We are assuming the neighbors, especially those across the county road, would be extremely upset to be told they don't really own what everyone assumes they own. The power company having a distribution line along the road and the telephone company with a fiber optic along the road might also be a bit upset to find they have no easements. Rural water district probably has blanket easements with all adjoiners, so no problem there.
Is it possible to post the original survey plats of the section?
Keith
I wouldn't think you would make any decisions until you have all the evidence you are likely to find. That includes seeing how consistent the distances are and how well they fit various possible assumptions.
In your evaluation of the hierarchy of evidence, one big decision is whether the roads may be considered perpetuation of the original corners that have no other evidence. For instance, that won't do much for the N-S position of the E quarter corner, but might be accepted for its E-W position? That would probably not present any problems with ownership or easements along that line.
What are the laws in your jurisdiction for acquiescence? Isn't ownership of land along accepted boundaries, including existing roads, independent of the theoretical section layout, which you need to place the C1/4?
Is there long established occupation. If the boundaries are established maybe just some update to the property descriptions (via recorded agreements) is what is needed. Every survey every time shouldn't be a new section breakdown. I don't think perpetual chaos was what the PLSS founders had in mind, but that's about what is has become.
Not uncommon today to have 2 recognized 1/4 corners on an E-W or N-S section line. Created by lack of evidence of the original corner and occupation within each effected Section being based on, "with harmony in each Section", by using two different locations for the corners relied upon for each Section's subdivision. Sometimes maintaining harmony trumps a rule, you just need to be able to defend such choices with fairness, logic and maintaining harmony with the absence of unfair hardship for any party.
jud
Who say the C/4 , in this case , should be the the intersection of "right lines from the opposite 1/4 corners. You are working in two adjacent surveys, where the mid point of the corners on the "Indian Treaty Boundary" may control the direction of the Quarter section lines either side of the line with their corresponding 1/4 corners, another possible solution would be the mid point of the 1st 1/4 corners extended to the "Indian Treaty Boundary". More research is needed. Check the instructions at the time of the two surveys. In my local county we have a similar situation, two surveys 14 years apart with patents issued pursuant to the 1st survey and before the 2nd was performed.
The roads should be considered well above the application of mathematical restorations.
Then, reread the Oregon Appeals Court case of Dykes v Arnold.
The lottings on the two original survey plats will give an indication of how the C 1/4 sec. cor. should be established, but if it already has been established, then a resurvey of the center lines is necessary.
Some would cite Chapter 3 of the Manual as the ONLYprocedure to follow and forget the rest of the Manual on resurveys; but that opinion is as bogus as they get.
Keith
If there is already an "apparent" center of section, then you aren't playing "original" surveyor games. You are "retracing" boundaries which have "apparently" been established on the ground already. "Retracement" rules are found in an entirely different chapter of the manual and, in fact, aren't found in the manual at all once the property has gone to patent. The rules are then found in the common law principles of the particular state jurisdiction. The "Catholic method" of subdividing sections is only applicable when the boundaries are first run out on the ground by the surveyor (or often the settlers themselves). Once run out on the ground (presumptively in "good faith"), they are where they are. "Good faith" or "bona fide" efforts to locate the boundary have little to do with "method" or "precision." You need evidence of "fraud" or "malice" to overcome the "apparent" location.
If you are the "original" surveyor AND the lands were patented BEFORE the section west of the treaty line was completed, then you might consider a "weighted mean bearing" extending from the E4 corner. If your are the "original" surveyor AND the survey of the section west of the treaty line was completed BEFORE any land patents were issued, you might consider a connection of the north-south east-west (Catholic method) to establish the center quarter.
JBS
P.S. I don't see any mention in your post of closing corners set at the intersections of the section lines with the treaty line. That will change the picture as well.
For us non-Catholics!
JB, I am not sure what you are defining as the "Catholic method"?
Please explain to us non-Catholics? Since you are in Morman country, I assume there is some sort of connection?
Keith
For us non-Catholics!
The early Mormon way was to run the GLO out of town and do their own thing. Don't know what the Catholics done in Southeast Kansas.
For us non-Catholics!
> JB, I am not sure what you are defining as the "Catholic method"?
>
> Please explain to us non-Catholics? Since you are in Morman country, I assume there is some sort of connection?
>
> Keith
You know, Keith... The "Catholic method"...
[flash width=640 height=390] https://www.youtube.com/v/BpRzqXG1dhc?fs=1&hl=en_US [/flash]
The "Catholic method of subdividing sections" Defined by me as: The ritualistic method of subdividing sections by running a line from top (N4) to bottom (S4), then left (W4) to right (E4) and back to the middle (C4). A method applied ritualistically by surveyors when they really don't understand that any other method could be viewed as "correct."
;o)
JBS
As long as there is no gov't owned land involved, you are a retracing surveyor who has no obligation to preserve or create aliquot part descriptions.
If improvememnts were positioned with reliance on the original monuments, and those monuments were subsequently disturbed or obliterated, you must use the improvements to reestablish the original monuments, not the field notes of the original survey. The original notes have provenance only when the gov't is involved in the retracement survey.
There is a lot of evidence the lawyers 'created' aliquot part descriptions when the owners did not intend to subdivide their privately owned land following the procedures set forth in the 'Manuals'; which means that the descriptions were inaccurate when they were first put in the record. These are refered to as 'lawyers deeds' and they are one of the reasons why descriptions do not control established property lines.
You must obey your state laws and most states have statutes of repose or limitation which recognizes that physical boundaries, in place and unchallenged by the affected owners before you show up to do the survey, mark the legal boundaries, and the surveyor, not having any ownership interest in the land, has no authority to challenge the established physical evidence but the surveyor does have the responsibility to ensure that the legal boundaries are accurately described in a public record before his work is complete.
Richard Schaut
Try that for location. Top view shows the Treaty Line running north-south several hundred feet west of the north-south quarter section line. Satellite view will help clarify somewhat. Center of section is near 37-40.059 north and 95-34.271 west. Section 29.
Assume lands east of the boundary line were patented prior to any patents west of the line. There is no distinctive center of section. Even more of the trees appearing in the satellite view are now gone. Tree rows must have been dozed out years ago. Generally farmland and drainage waterways in the proximity.
I thought we were in sec. 20?
That darn 0 is right next to the 9. Sorry about that.
I couldn't get your USGS link to work- I think something got truncated.
On Google Earth, that section looks only a little more misshapen than lots of others around it, so maybe there isn't any reason to doubt the apparent corners and Qcorners.
Unless there is something on the original survey plats that we are not reading about or seeing on the quad sheet; I don't see a problem?
Keith
Where would the center corner have been located prior to the establishment of the remainder of the section west of the Boundary Line? There was no west quarter corner to connect with.
Before the survey of the section was complete I believe the manual would guide to set the center at 40 chains from the quarter corner on an average bearing between the north and south line of the incomplete section if the center corner was not set in the original survey. However that's only what should have happened. The question to answer what did happen and what has happened. The answer lies in where the evidence of the interior lines of the section were located and where the interior lines of the section have been established. I see evidence on the aerial imagery. Locate and evaluate the evidence and make a determination. If no evidence of establishment exists you become the first surveyor again and you subdivide according to the instructions if the completion survey makes the section look like a regular one. The fact that there is a big bend in the east line at the established quarter corner is irrelevant.
I would agree with linebender entirely, except possibly there was an existing N-S center line in the eastern portion of section and it could have been used at midpoint for the C 1/4 and/or at intersection with the E-W center line, on a mean bearing from the E 1/4 cor. But, that procedure could/would have been used before the western portion of the section was completed.
Now, is a different story. As linebender states, there is evidence of establishment of the interior subd. lines and that evidence can be evaluated now. In the lack of actual evidence. the C 1/4 can be set at intersection of the two centerlines.
This is dependent on my assumption that the two original survey plats do not show lottings that would indicate something else. I also assume they are available and have been reviewed?
Keith