Center of Section

Can't you just refer him to the BLM manual?
I assume that the problem is that you have a center section monument without a record history behind it.
Therefore the burden of proof will lay with you to demonstrate that it's an existent monument.

However, the manual doe state "First. All the corners marked in the surveys,
returned by the Secretary of the Interior or
such agency as he may designate, shall be established
as the proper corners of sections, or subdivisions
of sections, which they were intended
to designate;" (I only have the 1973 manual at present)

What does your BLM Rep have to say?

Someone is unclear on the concept. The stone is the center quarter corner.

Although, given the terrain nine tenths of a foot probably isn't anything to get too worked up about or pick your battles wisely. Nine tenths may be de minimus in that situation. I know it is hard to swallow but I don't favor using a 10 lb hammer to kill flies.

I remember reading somewhere and hearing from Jerry Broadus, that if the center of the section is surveyed in from the 1/4 corners and it seems that you have evidence of that action, it holds. I agree with you that the surveyor who placed the stone did a remarkable job.

Sounds to me like you have an EXISTENT Corner with a pedigree (however vague at this point) dating AT LEAST back to 1913 (the Mineral Surveys). Just because the Mineral Surveys have been Canceled, doesn't mean that they aren't STILL Official Surveys.

Have you looked at the “Table of Connections” or “Report” usually located towards the END of the Mineral Survey Field Notes?

Mineral Surveys of that vintage, SHOULD have at least a Report (and possibly a Table of Connections), somewhere between the recitations of Area, Conflicts, and Improvements etc., and the Final Oath of the Mineral Surveyor. Too many folks STOP reading (or copying) the Mineral Survey Notes, once they get to the end of the Courses, and into the Blah blah blah of the areas, improvements etc.

It is OFTEN in the Report (or Table of Connections) that you find a detailed description of the "other" monuments referred to the body of the metes & bounds Field Notes.

Loyal

From what you say, the shiny new cap has not been relied on, set yours where it should be and also note on the record of survey what and why you did not hold the new monument. If it was just a measurement issue or the passage of time, maybe a different thought, but the rejection of the existing center of section by the other surveyor, I would want no part of, or allow for an implied agreement with that rejection to be in the record.
jud

"an old survey, accepted by the parties for many years, fixes the true line, even though the survey may be in error." Pg 71 of Washington State Common Law of Surveys and Property Boundaries by Jerry R. Broadus.

From Stewart v. Hoffman, 390 P. 2d 553 - Wash: Supreme Court, 1st Dept. 1964

[1] This case comes within the rule of Farrow v. Plancich, 134 Wash. 690, 236 Pac. 288, where we held that an old survey, accepted by the parties for many years, fixes the true line, even though the survey may be in error.

Again, in Scott v. Slater, 42 Wn. (2d) 366, 368, 255 P. (2d) 377, this court said:

"... The pertinent rule is that, where a boundary has been defined in good faith by the interested parties and thereafter for a long period of time acquiesced in, acted upon, and improvements made with reference to the line, such a boundary will be considered the true dividing line and will govern. Whether or not the line so established is correct is immaterial. Mullally v. Parks, 29 Wn. (2d) 899, 906, 190 P. (2d) 107 (1948), and cases cited.

Not holding the Stone as the C 1-4 is blasphemous w/o some serious knowledge of its location being disturbed, or unrelied upon.;-)

Loyal,

I did check that and there was no description of the center quarter. There was however a sketch and notes for a traverse to the S 1/4 quarter of the section that was very helpful.

Donald,

Here's a portion of section 3-137 of the 2009 manual that I find pertinent: …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. …The law gives these activities repose.
It is unlawful for the surveyor to impair bona fide rights as to location. Proof of impairment of bona fide rights as to location per 43 U.S.C. 772, when lines have been run and marked and corners marked and fixed by local survey, must be positive evidence of a intentional departure from the legal principles governing recovery of original corner location, reestablishment and establishment of corner location, or subdivision of a section. Where the evidence of an extant subdivision-of-section indicates (1) a good faith attempt to relate it to the original controlling survey, (2) conformance as nearly as possible to legal subdivision principles, (3) reasonable accuracy standards for that time and place, (4) sufficiency for identification of the legal subdivisions, and (5) without fraud or gross error, the statutory intent of stability of boundaries and title to lands will have been met.

I know the manual has been incorporated into Washington law but I'll have to check the language and see if references a particular date for the manual or just says the current one.

Dave,

I agree with you generally over the 0.9' but without going into details, there are other issues at play here. I'm seeing this as a chance to point the expert measure technician toward the law and away from the 'here" button on his GPS receiver.

Doug

Center of Section>DWolfe

Thanks for the additional info! As a colonial surveyor with a CFedS cert I am very interested in reading about these issues.

It is surprising how much Colonial and PLSS surveyors have in common.

Don

My sentiments exactly Jud. It has been suggested that I could record my survey and show the correct location of the corner and it's relationship to the shiny cap and not set a monument but I'm not sure about that as most property owners are going to rely on the physical evidence on the ground.

Doug

Thanks Jered, that's good information. I'll include those cases along with the others in OR and MI I mentioned before. And really there's every indication that they did subdivide the section properly. I mean a precision of 1:6646 is damn good considering this was set between 1902 and 1913 in rough terrain. There is however little evidence for reliance on the corner. There is the location poster that shows a previous surveyor had some reliance on it but there aren't many surveys filed in this section and none of them (until I file mine) show the entire section, although they should have.

Doug

I'm still a little confused, but then that's normal....;-)

If you're willing to accept the stone, it's out 1.6 feet, but will reject the cap, it's only .9 feet. What's the harm in holding both? Would the cap be the first corner to mark that subdivision?

I would say that you are right, the property owners will tend to hold what's on the ground, pincushioning the corner will only confuse things.....more 😉

Harmony is the best policy, at least that's what I get out of the new manual. Bringing Jack leg surveyors and deed staker's together seems to be the theme.

Not trying to label you or your nemesis, just trying to help with a resolve..:hi5:

It might be a good idea to put this one to bed, the snow's going to fly soon and it could be a long cold winter. Not trying to rush you, or anything.....

Speaking of winter, I hope our buddy Daryl is OK, it looked like the "chain' was getting hit pretty hard and that's where he said he was headed......

Cheers,

Dugger

Center of Section>DWolfe

No problem Don, I'm going to use that in my response to the other surveyor anyway.

I'm really impressed by you M & B surveyors who go after the CFedS cert. It a great program and a challenge for those of us "raised" in the PLSS but I can't imagine all the concepts that you M&Ber's have to wrap your heads around! My experience with the continuing ed from CFedS has been good too. I just completed the Non-Rectangular course and learned quite a bit. As you say though, there's quite a bit of overlapping ground between the two systems that mainly comes down to research and your ability to recover evidence.

Doug

Dugger,

The stone is not off by any amount, It's only 1.6' from the mathematical solution of the perfect section subdivision and it's been there for at least 99 years if not longer (mineral surveys performed in 1912 and approved 1913). The shiny cap's been there for a week and was set based on rejecting the stone. As Jud put it so well:"the rejection of the existing center of section by the other surveyor, I would want no part of, or allow for an implied agreement with that rejection to be in the record. " It's not the 0.9' that bothers me as much as the disregard for "following in the footsteps" and the doctrine of repose. The fact that it's my Nemesis (as you so aptly put it:good: ) really doesn't have much to do with it. I generally follow the path of least resistance if I can. There are other issues relating to the land owners (section wide) that make this important. As far as the weather goes you're right but I don't let a couple of feet of snow bother me TOO much;-)

Daryl must be OK as he posted earlier today.

Good seeing you in Tacoma. I did find some case law as relates to the Peninsula problem that Bob & Jerry talked about and will post here when I get a chance.

Cheers back at ya!

Doug

> As Jud put it so well:"the rejection of the existing center of section by the other surveyor, I would want no part of, or allow for an implied agreement with that rejection to be in the record.