C-1/4 question

There are several good answers to your question.

1.) Resurvey the Section, reset the C1/4 correctly, and then exchange (or one way) to solve the LOCAL problem, so that one owner has part of 2 40's.
2.) Yield to the local C1/4, for that local survey, but use the calc one, for the rest of the section, AND PROVIDE A HISTORY FOR WHAT YOU DID, and WHY, on your plat, so that others will understand, and follow you.
3.) Yield to the poorly set C1/4, and make the rest of the section conform to it, as the poorly set one will keep more continuity, and peace in the neighborhood. Also, document this, and show all tie line, and give a good history for why you did.

Personally, (and without more info than you have provided) I lean towards 1.) above, but this kind of decision is what surveying is made of. If this is downtown chicago, ya aint movin main street!

🙂

Cheers.

NAte

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15312584497088268073&q=Titus+v+Chapman&hl=en&as_sdt=ffffffffffffe0 4">Titus v. Chapman would say no...

Witkowski v. White would say yes...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18417121240870287340&q=dykes&hl=en&as_sdt=4,3 8">Dykes v. Arnold would say "it depends"...

:beer:

DDSM
(maybe we should get Deral of Lawton to revive the pipe and stone)

I usually list reasons why and then reasons why not. Based on the info you gave 50 ft seems like a gross error for 1970. But you didn't state exactly what the methodology was that he used and why is it wrong. Could it in any sense be considered reasonable? What does the original plat look like? Maybe the center 1/4 should not be set at the intersection point. The fact that no other landowners have used the corners is important. Have you talked to the other landowners to make sure? Have you discussed the problem with other surveyors, county surveyor and/or the BLM. There may be another point of view you are missing.

There is no black and white rule, only well reasoned decisions.

> There are several good answers to your question.
>
> 1.) Resurvey the Section, reset the C1/4 correctly, and then exchange (or one way) to solve the LOCAL problem, so that one owner has part of 2 40's.
>
> Personally, (and without more info than you have provided) I lean towards 1.) above, but this kind of decision is what surveying is made of. If this is downtown chicago, ya aint movin main street!
>
> 🙂
>
> Cheers.
>
> NAte

Dang Nate,
You gonna show them dashed lines for the technical breakdown and show the stob off?...or label it a PROPERTY CORNER.

DDSM
(I agree...every circumstance is difference, and since we don't know the 'rest of the story, we can only bloviate)

I forgot to suggest read the 2009 BLM manual, it gives a list of things to consider. Be careful of using other state cases, as they are only persuasive not precedent. If you do read other state's cases compare your facts with the facts of the case you are reading.

I don't know. I wouldn't say that it is out of the question either way.

Whether the monument controls may not have anything to do with what the Surveyor did or didn't do.

The typical litigated case only resolves the one boundary in dispute. The Court doesn't look at the whole section as an inter-related system like we do. They resolve the one boundary in dispute but that doesn't necessarily control the other boundaries in the Section. So you could have different center quarters for purposes of different unrelated boundaries.

It would be best to avoid setting more monuments representing the same corners if we can avoid it but that must be balanced with the need to have an equitable breakdown where the boundaries haven't been monumented yet. For example, suppose a center quarter was set for the southwest of the southwest and the 1/16ths were set too and relied upon. That center quarter may not control for a new breakdown of the northeast of the northeast if it would severely distort those boundaries.

Many questions need to be answered.

What is the status and history of the section and 1/4 corners? Are they the original corners or are they perpetuations of the original corner positions, or were some of them proportioned in at some point in time, if so, when and why? Or are they locally accepted "best estimates" of the original positions?

What exactly did the 1970 surveyor do and why? What evidence and methods did he use? What was the ownership of the affected parcels? Was there reliance on his corners, by whom, for how long?

etc., etc.,

Agree that there is way more to this story than a quick fix. I tend to go with Nate's #1 and fix the lines in question, and set the center accordingly. Mostly because nobody else has relied on that bad corner. Let the rest of the section be correct, if possible.

But the 2009 manual wouldn't apply IMO. 1970 was a different set of rules, so those would apply (1947 manual?).

Read and reread and then read the case again.....Dykes v Arnold, the Oregon Appeals Court case.

That C 1/4 was off some 70 feet, as I remember and everybody knew it was not established at the requirements of the Manual.

The problem that you describe is very typical of subdivision of section surveys.

Keith

The 2009 Manual would apply to your survey today. But you would evaluate whether the 1970 corner was set correctly under the 1947 manual. Good catch

"The Manual is for the guidance of the employees of the Bureau of Land Management. To all others this surveying practice should be regarded as advisory, with no attempt to interpret State law respecting the survey of private property."

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2775151810926754375&q=witkowski+v.+white&hl=en&as_sdt=4, 4">Witkowski v. White

DDSM
(retracement of the footsteps depends on the instructions the original surveyor had in his hand)

Patent dates?

How was the section originally patented out of federal ownership in relationship to the date of subsequent private surveys? 1 owner, 2 owners 3 owners or 4? Any unpatented federal (public domain) land still there?

Were all C 1/4 adjacent landowners interests represented/protected by the previous survey?

Maybe there is an issue of taking if adjacent landowners were not party to the survey.

Does any of this matter?

First, what kind of physical evidence exists that fixes the boundaries of the 40 acre tract? 41 years is longer than the requirement for adverse possession, if there is substantial evidence of occupation and control up to the established boundary lines, those lines may have become the legal boundaries. Even if there was a substantial error in the survey, it may be too late for any correction of the 40 acre tract if the owner got a tract of 40 acres.

As long as there has been no reliance of the 'C1/4', it is not binding on the rest of the owners future parcel sales.

Richard Schaut

Depends on what the State Statutes say. Lot of States make following the Manual Mandatory for executing and performing surveys in the rectangular system in their particular state. Not one way fits all ways. This is a need to know item for the professional.

You are right Charles and it should be mandatory that licensed professionals know that.

Keith

> Now my question:
>
> Should that C-1/4 be honored by all other landowners and surveyors for the rest of the section? Consider that none have relied upon it other than the 40-acre owner and apparently those who abutted him.
>
> No other owners have had surveys or have established any lines of occupation on the interior of the section.

In order to understand the reasons for the answer to this fundamental question (which really applied to ANY monument placed by a surveyor), we surveyors must realize that NOTHING that the surveyor did has anything to do with the answer. The surveyor's actions, abilities, inabilities, etc. have nothing to do with whether the monument should be accepted and why it should or should not be used by subsequent surveyors.

The reasons that the surveyor's actions don't matter is because only the actions of the landowners can be looked at to determine whether the boundary has been established. EVERY boundary is established under one of five fundamental doctrines: written agreement, oral agreement, implied agreement, equitable estoppel, or practical construction (some jurisdictions include the other four under an umbrella).

The answer lies in the actions of the landowners. We know up front that the landowners have done it right. They hired a professional land surveyor to assist them in determining their boundary. What else should they do? That action, alone, however does not establish the boundary. The landowners must RELY upon the surveyor's monument AFTER the surveyor leaves. Under the doctrine of written agreement, they'd need to do it in writing. An oral agreement would disclose evidence that the owners corroborated to determine their boundary and acted upon the agreement by erecting physical improvements. An implied agreement requires a mutual recognition and acquiescence of the boundary by the coterminous owners for a long period of time. Estoppel requires a representation made by one owner, reliance by the other owner and substantial costs incurred (no time element). Or the landowners may have acted upon their agreement at or near the time of the agreement and fulfilled the terms of the agreement by erecting improvements which best reflect the agreement. Keep in mind that an agreement establishing the boundary between two landowners has no affect on the location of any other boundary between any other landowners.

The scenario put forth contains none of the evidence that is required to make a determination whether the monument should or should not be used by subsequent surveyors or landowners.

JBS

bloviate!

bloviate... I like that word!

I will get my teacher/student to include it in my next English/Spanish lesson.

One needs to consider the requirements in the Manual sec. 6-28!

I know that some refuse to read and adhere to the Manual, but if you are in a State that recognizes the Manual, it is good professional advice to survey in the PLSS.

For instance, if the C 1/4 sec. cor. in this example is accepted as the true C 1/4 sec. cor., then according to sec. 6-28, you would be required to use it to establish other subdivision of section corners.

Or, you can ignore the existing C 1/4 sec. cor. and hope nobody in the section knows about the Dykes case.

Or, you can call it the property corner and establish your "true" C 1/4 sec. cor. and thus perpetuate the bogus theory that I have been posting about.

You will be forced to make a decision and if in fact you are called to court to explain your reasons; it is a very good idea to be able to quote the Manual requirements and live with them.

Otherwise, if you ignore the Manual, you may end up in court and you will have someone challenging your decision not to use the Manual.

What is your State's requirement on the Manual?

Thoughts for you to consider.

Keith

Let's argue one more item:

Consider that none have relied upon it other than the 40-acre owner and apparently those who abutted him.
>
> No other owners have had surveys or have established any lines of occupation on the interior of the section.

This would mean that all the landowners in a given section should occasionally go and LOOK at the C1/4, to see if some new monument pops up, that is gonna modify their lines!

🙂

N