skwyd, post: 345107, member: 6874 wrote: I often think of the statement done on subdivision maps around here wherein an owner/subdivider "dedicates to the public, for public use" fee title to some land. There is even a clause that states that if the public purpose for which land was dedicated to the public is determined to no longer exist, then the public has to reconvey the property back to the original owner. And there is all kinds of processes and whatnot that have to happen for not only the original need for this land to be granted to the public (like for a park or storm drain retention pond or whatever), but also an entirely other process for the public to determine that this need no longer exists so the land can be disposed of. In all cases, the lands are held by the local agency on behalf of the public.
Yes it is indeed an intriguing subject. It has kept the courts busy and attorneys well fed for hundreds of years.
Our local city government is pretty typical for the area. In my opinion they're a bunch of busy bodies that are all over-impressed with their own ability to suck oxygen...anyway...When sub-dividing land around here and obtaining building permits the city "requires" dedications of additional section line right of way and all sorts of drainage easements. (On a side note, cities requiring land dedication to satisfy permits has been ruled graft in some courts, but they continue the practice here). They have even required a "private easement" on long driveways for ingress and egress of city emergency vehicles...AND agents or assigns of the City (of course). Idiots.
And they have all sorts of standard forms they give me as the one preparing the descriptions for these R/Ws and easements. The dedication on their SF is NOT to the public, it is a dedication to the City of Nowhere, a municipal corporation. In my old age I try to do everything I can to stop the ebb of our personal rights as citizenry. For about the last ten years I've been altering all my "Grant of Easement" and "Grant of Right-of-Way" pdfs to read "dedicated to the public" instead of a dedication to a municipal corporation. Don't really know what the difference is and don't really care. I've seen several City Attorneys come and go. They all have a line to sign on the dedication and they always sign it.
If they ever catch my alteration, I'm sure I'll try it again the next time...jes' cuz that's what I do. B-)
paden cash, post: 345114, member: 20 wrote: And they have all sorts of standard forms they give me as the one preparing the descriptions for these R/Ws and easements. The dedication on their SF is NOT to the public, it is a dedication to the City of Nowhere, a municipal corporation. In my old age I try to do everything I can to stop the ebb of our personal rights as citizenry. For about the last ten years I've been altering all my "Grant of Easement" and "Grant of Right-of-Way" pdfs to read "dedicated to the public" instead of a dedication to a municipal corporation. Don't really know what the difference is and don't really care. I've seen several City Attorneys come and go. They all have a line to sign on the dedication and they always sign it.
If they ever catch my alteration, I'm sure I'll try it again the next time...jes' cuz that's what I do. B-)
The whole concept of "City of Hoopaderp, a Municipal Corporation" is a bit sketchy. There is the implication that the City can then hold title to property either as a private entity (i.e. a corporation) or on behalf of the public. It is definitely different than a County. A good example of the difference in this was demonstrated to me once by this analogy. In the County, you elect a Sheriff. In a City, they HIRE a Chief of Police. It says something about the different nature of a City Government and a County Government.
And I've also learned that (at least in California) there are two kinds of cities. There is the "general law" city and there is the "charter" city. And I guess there are statutes that work differently depending upon what kind of city it is.
A mess for sure. But yeah, I agree, my deeds (if I write them instead of the title company) will say, "dedicated to the public for public use".
imaudigger, post: 345074, member: 7286 wrote: Please tell that to the USFS and BLM. They often use the term "BLM owned lands" or "USFS owned lands".
They don't like it when you remind them that the land does not belong to them as an agency, but rather to them as a (legal) citizen of the United States.
BLM, the USFS, Park Service and I'm sure there are others that are administrators of these lands, they don't own them. USBR lands are a different matter that were actually under the USBR regarding reservoir boundaries, power plants, etc. State lands are supposedly transferred by the US to the States for certain things, mainly schools for the settlement of the West and building schools to educate the children of the settlers.
My understanding is...because the Constitution doesn't address the idea of political subdivisions smaller than the state, the municipal corporation creates a legal entity that the state can then divest powers to by legislation. I could be wrong though - ask my wife, she'll tell you its a common occurrence.
skwyd, post: 345115, member: 6874 wrote: .. It says something about the different nature of a City Government and a County Government..
I know nothing about "municipal corporations". In my mind corporations are created to direct and avenue financial flow and assets. Those two thing always attract predators, like raw meat.
The one scenario I have actually seen play out around here involved a pipeline company (not the domestic use natural gas provider in the area). The pipeline was planned to be buried in some of the city's roadway additional width dedication. The city raised hell about the planned location within their "right-of-way" and required the pipeline company to bury a lot deeper and further back from the road (requiring a lot of extensive prep on the part of the contractor due to grade concerns). They even required "inspection fees" for construction within their right-of-way. In area where the pipeline was buried in public or statutory R/W the city had little to no say about what the contractor did. This was actually what prompted me to start modifying their standard forms.
James Fleming, post: 345120, member: 136 wrote: My understanding is...because the Constitution doesn't address the idea of political subdivisions smaller than the state, the municipal corporation creates a legal entity that the state can then divest powers to by legislation. I could be wrong though - ask my wife, she'll tell you its a common occurrence.
In California, there are currently 58 political subdivisions of the state - called counties. Within each county are municipal corporations. This is pursuant to the state constitution.
The boundaries of each municipal corporation are created and annexed through approval of local agency formation commissions. Charters for these are approved by legislative resolution, otherwise they are governed through general law by statute.
The governance of all these entities is pursuant to codified statutes within the Government Code. Special districts are also governed in this manner.
Am I not mistaken that the current United States of America is a corporation as well?
Something about qualifying for foreign loans?
imaudigger, post: 345129, member: 7286 wrote: Am I not mistaken that the current United States of America is a corporation as well?
Sounds screwy, but wouldn't surprise me. One thing that really surprised me years ago is that the Federal Reserve Bank is a private company with no ties to the government. My uncle was a guard there for years. When he retired I made a remark about him being a retired federal employee...he corrected me. I had to read up on it and was really, really surprised with what I discovered.
My question about the Public Domain is this:
In California in the 19th century GLO notes there is often evidence of occupation and use before the GLO showed up to Survey the Townships. For example, "North between Sections 20 & 21, 10 Chains, Smith's Lumber Mill bears West 2 chains," etc. There was already a lot of logging going on years, sometimes decades before the Surveys then often the Patents followed five to 10 years after the Surveys.
Was it legal to go to unpatented land and harvest timber or mine for gold?
We also have the Townsites, where towns of squatters grew up, later the Federal Government patented the town to a local judge then the judge and the county surveyor would have to figure out who had what.
Dan Patterson, post: 345031, member: 1179 wrote: I can't speak to all situations, but pretty much every time I have seen a gap it was unintentional. The geometry was bad so the intended deed lines didn't meet, but they were supposed to. Those could be cleared by looking at the intent of the parties and Jr/Sr rights.
I have never had a gore on one of my surveys which would be related to larger boundaries or municipal boundaries that seem to deliberately exclude an area to which no one has title. I recently had a filed map that called out an "apparent gore", but I believe it to be a gap. Actually, I believe the old deeds even called the adjoining lands, so I don't know what that guy was thinking. Obviously in that case the monuments if any would control the location of the line.
I suppose if you went back far enough it would have belonged to someone from a grant from the king of England at some point. I've actually done that once in Sussex County. Then I had to follow the chain of title to see where it got "lost" to see who should've retained title. So I guess what I am saying is that if you look hard enough someone owns it.
I have put a lot of thought into this (your first paragraph) lately. And the easiest answer I come up with is that:
If it is intentional it CANNOT be a gap. Therefore, if it is a gap it CANNOT be intentional.
Every year I find a little strip of land that is not included in either adjoining deed description, yet was deeded to them by being referenced as all of that property as described in some prior deed.
Usually it is a strip of land in the road and the last buyer insisted that they were not paying for any land that was in the road so the surveyor made calls to the margin of the road yet described the property in the preamble as all of the prior described lands.
Once I found nearly 20 acres that was not on tax rolls and not claimed by anyone. Title search revealed it had never past from original Patent ownership and had been cut out by a bad survey made in the 1920s that had good measurements and monuments that were recovered. Several of the boundaries had bad and fictitious calls for adjoining owners along what were actually division boundaries across the Headright. Nobody attempted to search for any of the heirs and it was claimed under some rather dubious methods.
I have found apparent non patented lands that according to the LSLSs of Texas I don't have the authority to make any decision on and they would not take my word some 25yrs ago, so I've kept it between me and the client I surveyed some land that it adjoins. He is now deceased and I am no longer keeper of those files. I believe it to be near 700 acres and would cause quite a stir since many people are living on the land. I may have some old 4 1/2 inch floppy Apple data files in storage. I am sure nobody has the hardware to retrieve the info.
I surveyed and platted an old subdivision in Hughes Springs, Tx that had some boundaries going to the margin of the road and many others that went to the center of the roads. That made for many irregular shaped properties in the road that the title was vested with a deceased developer that had no heirs of record.
There are still some lands in limbo that need more money than the property is worth to clear the title.
Just ask some of my clients. I've had several people tell me "that land doesn't belong to anyone".
Was it legal to go to unpatented land and harvest timber or mine for gold?
Short answer is YES. This is still true (subject to interpretations of reasonable protection management of natural resources). These rights are at the very heart of what made our country as powerful as it is today. It resulted in actual tangible wealth.
There were several important laws passed which granted these rights to the citizens of the US.
Even in this day and age, I personally have prospected on un-patented public domain lands and located mineral claims under the rights granted to me in the various congressional acts.
I own these minerals as real property. The legal interpretation of environmental protection laws are slowly eroding real property rights to the point that they will have disappeared almost entirely for those that do not have unlimited financial resources.
Scott Zelenak, post: 345021, member: 327 wrote: I'm in a colonial state and way back when I was young I heard the old tale of the surveyor finding a gap between property and somehow acquiring title.
The proprietors of East and West Jersey used to own new or unclaimed land so it never made sense to me.
But both entities closed shop.
As I said I'm not a boundary surveyor. I was just wondering if there's some theoretical scenario under which a piece of land could be not owned privately or publicly.
FWIW, there is going to be a CEU session at the upcoming NJSPLS Conference involving the East Jersey and West Jersey proprietors.
While both entities may have ceased to function, their records are still relevant to many title situations in the state.
The session is being given on Friday, Feb 5, 1PM to 5PM.
It is called "We are History: Researching and Using Ancient Records to Make the Case".
More details are available at the NJSPLS website.
Holy Cow, post: 345040, member: 50 wrote: That leads to a very specific thought that applies in the New York City area.
I've read how "new land" is created through the placement of various materials in open water adjacent to "land" to expand said land. If adjacent to private land, how does the new "owner" of "new land" acquire title?
In many cases here in the NYC area, "new land" is being created by filling in from the existing shore line out to pierhead or bulkhead lines, which were established by Acts of Congress, the Secretary of War or other federal or state government action.
Most of the time this is land that is either distributed in water grants, or held by the State (or sometimes Federal) government.
Scott Zelenak, post: 345021, member: 327 wrote: I'm in a colonial state and way back when I was young I heard the old tale of the surveyor finding a gap between property and somehow acquiring title.
The proprietors of East and West Jersey used to own new or unclaimed land so it never made sense to me.
But both entities closed shop.
As I said I'm not a boundary surveyor. I was just wondering if there's some theoretical scenario under which a piece of land could be not owned privately or publicly.
FWIW, there is going to be a CEU session at the upcoming NJSPLS Conference involving the East Jersey and West Jersey proprietors.
While both entities may have ceased to function, their records are still relevant to many title situations in the state.
The session is being given on Friday, Feb 5, 1PM to 5PM.
It is called "We are History: Researching and Using Ancient Records to Make the Case".
More details are available at the NJSPLS website.
Paul in PA, post: 345029, member: 236 wrote: The US government owns nothing. It does hold in trust lands of the people of the United States as a whole. Results in other nations may vary.
Paul in PA
Not quite true. The US Government does own land acquired from private owners or the states, but you are correct they do not "own" the land in the public domain.
The taxing authority owned it when they foreclosed on it. They then can sell it to whoever they want.
ppm, post: 345148, member: 6808 wrote: I have put a lot of thought into this (your first paragraph) lately. And the easiest answer I come up with is that:
If it is intentional it CANNOT be a gap. Therefore, if it is a gap it CANNOT be intentional.
Exactly; as in the "Hess Triangle"
The Government does not have fee title to the majority of land it controls. Fee title flows from an issued Patent to a specific entity or person.
A patent does more than give title to a person, it grants a burden on that land for roads, schools etc. The BLM etc. does not really want to deal with such burdens, since it wants to exclude the public in general.
Paul in PA
ppm, post: 345148, member: 6808 wrote: I have put a lot of thought into this (your first paragraph) lately. And the easiest answer I come up with is that:
If it is intentional it CANNOT be a gap. Therefore, if it is a gap it CANNOT be intentional.
I guess you're right. That's kind of the definition of a gap. If it appears to be intentional it would be a gore. I still say SOMEONE owns it no matter what.
