Western tier township government lot, not an aliquot part of the section to begin with, subsequently subdivided by aliquot part.
Good, bad or indifferent??ÿ
Maybe I'm barking up a tree but seems if it wasn't an aliquot part to begin with, why would they go that route??ÿ
Standard Operating Procedure in your area? Curious minds would like to know.
?ÿ
It would seem like it should be something like S 1/2 GL6, not S 1/2 SW 1/4 NW 1/4, if that makes any sense.
I would look to the patent. Even when the patent lists an aliquot part the acreage usually matches the lots on the plat. Also check to see the latest accepted survey prior to patent. Remember, the plat and notes are considered part of the patent. The entryman can only gain title to parcels as legally created...
OTOH, if everyone divvied it up on a split 120 years ago you need to follow that history. All the cool tricks are moot when there are footsteps to follow...
I guess as long as it's described properly like "the SW/4 of Lot 4 in Sec. 7...."?ÿ?ÿit avoids ambiguity but doesn't follow the so-called PLSS regiment.?ÿ I'd probably avoid creating a parcel that way but bounding it shouldn't be a problem.
SOP??ÿ Gawd I hope not.?ÿ One of my pet peeves in OK is the transposing of Lot numbers and aliquot descriptions.?ÿ There are thousands of recorded document around here where "Lot 1, Section 6..." became the "NE/4 of the NE/4 of Section 6" somewhere way back in the chain of title.?ÿ ?ÿ
I'll never get used to it.?ÿ
@thebionicman It was patented as a government lot but subsequently subdivided without any reference to the original lot designation. Straight up aliquot part descriptions, which threw me for a loop briefly, until I realized what was going on. Not an aliquot part at all outside of the government lot, which itself was never mentioned in the legal. Funny thing about it was it was done under our 40 acre exemption rule where 10 acre parcels can be created without a survey and plat, but technically the areas are quite a bit less than ten acres. I can only shrug. Hadn??t seen that one done before. It is what it is.
@williwaw This gives me visions of a posse riding down the offending party...
It is confusing to the common folk even more than it is confusing to surveyors.
Put some notes on a recent survey explaining why the Lot was not the same size as the aliquot part next to it.?ÿ That raised a few questions, which is why I put the notes on the plat in the first place.
It is probably most confusing to people when near 40 acres. My wife's brother owns a Gov lot that is 53 acres, so quite a noticeable difference from the 39 or 41 acre quarter-quarters near it.
@williwaw this is just one example of the many land description butchering done by laymen landowners.?ÿ When the state statues and accompanying Borough ordinances allowed subdivisions of larger parcels by waiver of the subdivision ordinances, and put it in the hands of the landowner to describe the partitioned lots, and the accepting Borough had no professional oversite or review of the description what would you expect??ÿ Chaos, ambiguity, and future boundary and title problems.?ÿ ?ÿSuch short sighted laws to allow landowners to "cheap out" and do it themselves and expect no unintended consequences and huge downstream expenses.?ÿ ?ÿNow surveyors like you and many others get to sort it all out, and hopefully charge dearly to correct the mess.?ÿ Seems like there is never money to do it right, but there is always money to fix or repair the damage.?ÿ Good luck, follow the intention of the subdividing description.?ÿ File a record of survey of your solution.
It becomes painfully obvious when Government lots were created with rivers forming part of the boundary as rivers keep moving laterally over time.?ÿ We have a Lot 1 in a section not far from me that was barely more than a bit of gravel bar isolated from the remainder of the section.?ÿ Today it is maybe eight or ten acres, which, of course came about at the expense of the Lot on the opposite side of the river.?ÿ Someday the river will eventually change such that Lot 1 will completely be obliterated due to the river being completely in the section to the north.?ÿ To the best of my knowledge from searching the index books in the Register of Deeds Office, Lot 1 has never been transferred from the U.S. to a private landowner.?ÿ The adjoining landowner has used the land for decades and it was used even longer by his predecessors.
Worked on a job yesterday the southeast quarter of the section, which is about 35 feet long east and west, had been sold with the westernmost 660-foot strip being called the west half of the west half of the southeast quarter.?ÿ Then the next 660-foot strip was sold as being the east half of the west half of the southeast quarter.?ÿ Everything to the east of that is described by metes and bounds with the west line of that tract being 1320 feet from the west side of the quarter section.
Definitely bad. Definitely ambiguous. Those that think it is not ambiguous have just never met someone who also thinks it is not ambiguous, but in a very different way.
Of course there are thousands of them out there and we have to deal with it. When they are close to what was platted it can be a non issue.?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
@northernsurveyor Given the sheer number of butchered surveys and legals I run across, filing a ROS on each and every one would be a full time job. A lot of the issues I'm running into are contemporary. The land wasn't worth much forty years ago and people didn't have much money. Sections were broken down by transit and tape, short cuts were taken. Fast forward and new subdivisions worth big money are popping up like mushrooms and with new technology, some of our brethren are setting new monuments next to the originals that have been honored for forty plus years. Just the other day. Two center 1/4 corners. The original set in 1973 by Loundsbury, along comes another surveyor in 2006, sets a new C 1/4 6' away that he uses for all of his subdivision work. Double corners everywhere. It's just a cluster.
@mightymoe I wish he were new. Been around for years and very prolific. Being a public forum, I should probably tread lightly and avoid going on a rant.
Surveys get labeled that way all the time around here. It has more to do with the indexing than anything. Usually, the details are correct, but the heading says 1/4 of 1/4 even though it is a government lot. I had a few that I found that were not part of the PLSS at all (tidelands), but they were reclaimed and platted by the state.
Thing is, the DNR/auditors/etc all have indexing using 1/4 of 1/4...
We all know what is meant, but I can imagine someone getting a description incorrect because of that.
@dmyhill Yes, but it is up to the surveyor what they will show on their ??record?? and what they will omit. Often evidence that does not support their solution conveniently gets omitted.
