?ÿ
Surveying new parcels in Section 24.?ÿ Does Section 24 have north and south quarter corners??ÿ They are closing corners against the Tracts.?ÿ I need to tie to them for the descriptions.?ÿ What would they properly be called??ÿ My four new parcels are cut out of Lots 3 and 4.
GLO Notes:
?ÿ
Look at the Recorders map!!?ÿ Yup, every section is 5280 x 5280 square, no bother about Tracts, Lots and GLO surveys!!
?ÿ
?ÿ
What I would really like to use for my commencement and tie points are the the Tract corners. Corners 2 and 3 of Tract 53 and Corners 2 and 3 of Tract 54. I found undisturbed all these corners. Not sure the recorder or the title companies will even understand what I'm referencing. Probably get rejected!
That looks like lots of fun!
should be a walk in the park, provided that you recover all the corners....
No, no 1/4s for that section, only the W1/4. All the info is there to "breakdown" the lots. I don't have enough info to know if there is an East 1/4 but it doesn't look like there is. Just use the tracts for the East line of section24, the cc's for the W1/16th corners on the north and south section lines and there are dimensions to figure out the NE and NW corners of lot3.
The West tract lines are the East line of sec24, probably the dominant estate is still federal, I would look at the MT plat.
Call them "key points" in Section 24.
Commencing at the original iron post (or whatever), the southwest corner Tract 54,?ÿ designated as corner 3 upon the official township government survey plat, thence N....on the west line Tract 54 and the east line of GL1, section 25 to a super duper LR DAY monument, the southeast corner GL4 on the line between sections 24 and 25, the point of beginning,?ÿ thence...... (or something of the sort)?ÿ
As far as a valid legal description being rejected... This would be a good opportunity for educating the recorder and the county attny if the recorder will not cooperate.?ÿ
?ÿ
If the tracts preceded the section layout, the section lines (or aliquot lines) would truncate at the senior tract.?ÿ?ÿ
I would say that Sec. 24 is both irregular and fractional and agree with Mighty Moe that there are no N1/4 and S1/4 corners.?ÿ The retracement of the range line indicates that the E1/4 was found, but it was not used to control the E-W centerline of Sec. 24 in the 1918 survey. There are four original plats that predate the 1916-18 original plat.?ÿ Those early surveys basically surveyed the eastern 1/2 mile of Secs. 1, 12, 13, 24, 25 and 36 (to the mountain front) and portions of the eastern 2 tiers of sections.?ÿ The 1916-18 survey created a sectional guide meridian.
This is a bit different from what I would expect.?ÿ There are two supplemental plats for the township done at the same time as the 1916-18 original survey.?ÿ They depict the resurvey of the tracts. The plat you show is the supplemental plat for the southern half.?ÿ Here's a link to the original plat approved on the same days as the supplemental plats that close onto the tracts.
The above plat includes a table showing the segregated tracts and their original aliquot parts descriptions.
Have fun explaining this to the Recorder, Leon.?ÿ
If the tracts preceded the section layout, the section lines (or aliquot lines) would truncate at the senior tract.?ÿ?ÿ
The west side of the Tracts is the termination of an earlier GLO survey about 1872.?ÿ This is the west edge of the mountains.?ÿ The rest of the township hadn't been subdivided.?ÿ Many but not all of "Tracts" had gone to patent.?ÿ So the 1914?ÿ GLO surveyor tracted all the previous survey and then subdivided the rest of the township?ÿ setting CC's along the tract boundaries.?ÿ I not sure but think the reason the Tracts west boundary is so jagged is due to the?ÿ some of the land patented and some not at the time of the final GLO survey.?ÿ I've found all the GLO monuments along he tract line except the CC on the north side of Section 24.?ÿ I'm thinking to attach a copy of the GLO plat to my survey to show the evidence.?ÿ Kind of blows the recorders map out of the water.?ÿ Generally our rules say we have to tie a description to a section corner.?ÿ Are tract corners section corners??ÿ Are the CC's section corners?
Are tract corners section corners? No
Are the CC's section corners? No
However, they may be regarded as such in your statutes and/or board rules.
Doesn't look very difficult you have bearing and distance to every tract in Section 24 oh and field notes.
Call the Corners by the proper names given in the notes. They are GLO Corners and would satisfy the Statutory requirements everywhere I work.
Don't let the fact that it's unusual lead you astray. It is also critical that you don't allow non-professionals to force you away from proper terminology. That is the first step in failing to protect the manner title was created. Local terms are for the campfire, not records dealing with real property rights...
My. 02, Tom
Looks like material for a great 6-hour seminar on the Vegas trip.?ÿ ??ÿ
This is an independent resurvey (guessing but pretty sure without looking it up, sometimes you need the instructions), these were done cause there were probably large issues with the original survey. Usually the original was fraudulent. The independent resurvey was tasked with protecting existing patentees, hence the Tracts which will be related to the original by the index to segregated tracts. That index will be filed with the plats or may be shown on one of the plats. The index will explain what those tracts were before the resurvey. Sometimes tracts shown in a township may have been patents from a different township.
There will be surveys in the notes for each tract, usually the rest of the township is still federal or made up of patents that haven't been occupied. There should be a?ÿsectional correction line running east-west, and a?ÿcorrection line?ÿnorth-south and then the sections laid out from those, the point being that the new sections have little to no relationship to the original lines, sometimes shifting up to a mile. Section 24 is basically the remainder of what was laid out from the sectional correction lines and the tracts. It's a fill in section. I will assume that it was all federal and then when later patented the feds would usually retain the minerals which means you will be also doing a mineral survey when you lay out the lots and 40's. It looks like there has been development,?ÿthe recorder's map indicates that there is,?ÿso lines on the ground?ÿare?ÿprobably laid out.
Anyway, there is lots to consider, but don't worry about the missing 1/4's just work inside 24 which is 160 acres plus Lots 1-4. Sometimes those plats will show an acreage under the Section label. This one doesn't for some reason.
The acreage is shown as 296.38, slightly separated but there.
This is the sum of lots 1 to 4 plus the 160. The tracts are 'segregated' and therefore not included in the area. I have seen some references to 'tract x of Section x', but the Section number is not necessary. Tracts were numbered starting at 37 to avoid confusion with Section numbers.
