I always enjoy reading Ken'ts posts and I try to read every one of them. His recent post where he shows an original monument he found after 4 hours of searching reflects great work.
The scenario brings up a sitation that might be of interest.
Does the pipe (not the original monument) gain value as a common report or common usage section corner that would exceed the value of the original corner over time even if no fences or lines of possession have ever occupied the surface?
> The scenario brings up a sitation that might be of interest.
>
> Does the pipe (not the original monument) gain value as a common report or common usage section corner that would exceed the value of the original corner over time even if no fences or lines of possession have ever occupied the surface?
Without any of the adjoining landowners even knowing where that 1938 pipe was for the last fifty years, much less relying upon it to locate their improvements, I think that the answer will almost always be that the pipe could not be a corner established by recognition or usage.
I am working in a township that was dependently resurveyed in 1950.
The resurveyor declared the original survey fraudulent accepted a couple of fence corners and prorated the rest of the township.
In 2002 original stone monuments were recovered in conflict with the resurvey brass caps.
According the the counsel with the Fed.'s because all the property was transferred between 1950 and 2002 the dependent resurvey monuments and plat cancel out the original stones.
So sometimes, why bother looking for those original monuments?
> I am working in a township that was dependently resurveyed in 1950.
> The resurveyor declared the original survey fraudulent accepted a couple of fence corners and prorated the rest of the township.
>
> In 2002 original stone monuments were recovered in conflict with the resurvey brass caps.
>
> According the the counsel with the Fed.'s because all the property was transferred between 1950 and 2002 the dependent resurvey monuments and plat cancel out the original stones.
> So sometimes, why bother looking for those original monuments?
Well, in the case you describe, wouldn't one say that the 1950 resurvey established the original corners if all of the titles issued by the United States in the township were to lands described by reference to the resurvey?
That's the position of the BLM. And I would agree if it was an independent resurvey, but because it is a dependent resurvey the title transferes don't all say "Section 28" of dependent resurvey plat, they just say Section 28. And what about oil wells that were pumping oil since just after the resurvey or the coal mine that shipped coal and has been reclaimed and on and on.
> That's the position of the BLM. And I would agree if it was an independent resurvey, but because it is a dependent resurvey the title transferes don't all say "Section 28" of dependent resurvey plat, they just say Section 28. And what about oil wells that were pumping oil since just after the resurvey or the coal mine that shipped coal and has been reclaimed and on and on.
Well, in that case, isn't the point of searching for the corners of the original subdivision in addition to those of the later resurvey to make all the parties aware of the problem? I mean, if you're going to sink $750,000 into drilling a gas well on the SW 1/4 of Section 10, wouldn't you want to know which location was safe by either construction of the tract, by resurvey or from original government subdivision? If so, the surveyor would want to show both positions of the tract on whatever map he or she prepared, I'd think.
> > That's the position of the BLM. And I would agree if it was an independent resurvey, but because it is a dependent resurvey the title transferes don't all say "Section 28" of dependent resurvey plat, they just say Section 28. And what about oil wells that were pumping oil since just after the resurvey or the coal mine that shipped coal and has been reclaimed and on and on.
>
> Well, in that case, isn't the point of searching for the corners of the original subdivision in addition to those of the later resurvey to make all the parties aware of the problem? I mean, if you're going to sink $750,000 into drilling a gas well on the SW 1/4 of Section 10, wouldn't you want to know which location was safe by either construction of the tract, by resurvey or from original government subdivision? If so, the surveyor would want to show both positions of the tract on whatever map he or she prepared, I'd think.
It's been a while since you were in the oil patch eh? Try doubling that for a vertical well, triple it for a horizontal, and maybe that would be enough.
🙂
>
> It's been a while since you were in the oil patch eh? Try doubling that for a vertical well, triple it for a horizontal, and maybe that would be enough.
Well, even at $750,000, that's enough money to pay for a full investigation of most boundary issues unless a surveyor wouldn't mind writing a check at least that big when the problems surface.
It's not really the cost of drilling that's important here. It's the mineral rights. Start paying the wrong people and it can add up very quickly. For coal its the area. An acre or two of coal, depending on the depth could be worth almost a million.
The gas wells that are being drilled here are very shallow and are done with just a water well rig-so right at $100,000.
The oil wells in the township are 1950-60 vintage so pumping for a while....
One thing here is important, and it might best be described by an example.
Assume John Survyeor goes out to survey the east line of a section line, and he finds the section corner that has been used by all local professional surveyors to the extent that he considers it the section corner by common report. Land titles are conveyed based upon this common report corner for 25 years. Along comes an extremely thorough surveyor who spends a week at the section corner trying to prove the GLO corner, and he actually is able to find the old GLO section corner and prove it without a doubt. Assume the GLO corner and the common report corner are 16 feet from each other.
Assume a boundary dispute occurs as a result of this. Which corner will prevail in your opinion?
In this part of the country adverse possession is given almost every time it gets to court. We did have a local case recently that went the other way, but the last two supreme court cases were in favor of the occupation and one of those was a "gasp". Of course, it depends, but I would say that the 1/4 would be the original with respect to estates in the land beyond occupation and the other monument might mark possession. Also, its difficult for me to find a 1/4 corner in this part of the world that doesn't have public land estate tied to it and the original would hold.
That's what I would say until I actually found originals in conflict with the BLM.
> Assume John Survyeor goes out to survey the east line of a section line, and he finds the section corner that has been used by all local professional surveyors to the extent that he considers it the section corner by common report. Land titles are conveyed based upon this common report corner for 25 years.
> Along comes an extremely thorough surveyor who spends a week at the section corner trying to prove the GLO corner, and he actually is able to find the old GLO section corner and prove it without a doubt. Assume the GLO corner and the common report corner are 16 feet from each other.
> Assume a boundary dispute occurs as a result of this. Which corner will prevail in your opinion?
The basic problem is that the matter would be subject to litigation and, as we all know, that means that the results will depend upon quite a few unknowns, including the abilities of the combatants' attorneys.
In Texas, the question would be probably settled on the basis of equity, but absent some compelling set of facts, the principle is that mere acquiescence by mistake in the wrong line doesn't necessarily prevent one of the parties from claiming to the true line.
Kent
> >
> > It's been a while since you were in the oil patch eh? Try doubling that for a vertical well, triple it for a horizontal, and maybe that would be enough.
>
> Well, even at $750,000, that's enough money to pay for a full investigation of most boundary issues unless a surveyor wouldn't mind writing a check at least that big when the problems surface.
You'd think that wouldn't you. Sad to say, only a few O&G companies recognize the full value of the type of survey you speak of. Most want it in and out and turning to the right as fast as possible.
For retracement the old mark of common report controls the boundaries established when it was the controlling mark. The new older mark would be used for controlling new subdivision work but not retracement of boundaries established when depending on the old newer mark.;-)
Kent
> Sad to say, only a few O&G companies recognize the full value of the type of survey you speak of. Most want it in and out and turning to the right as fast as possible.
And that is why you won't find me out staking wells. The major oil companies used to have surveying departments and spent a fair amount of time studying the boundaries in ares where they proposed to engage in operations. The independents prefer casino-style.
Kent
I agree with your original statement. However now, I see the big boys wanting it quick & dirty with the independents allowing me to work the problems out and provide more professional service to them. One is the company that let me spend several weeks in the trinity river bottom where I discovered the vacancy and original witness tree.
However, now, staking wells down there is cheap! 🙂
Kent
> However now, I see the big boys wanting it quick & dirty with the independents allowing me to work the problems out and provide more professional service to them.
Who are the "big boys", just out of curiosity?
Kent
That would be posting some of my clients in a public forum and I can't do that. They are all traded publicly though.
When retracing a Deed calls for corners raise a question of fact of where is the corner located?
For example, beginning at the corner common to Sections 5, 6, 7 & 8...
Suppose there are two monuments representing that corner, an old GLO stone and a BLM capped iron post at materially different locations.
The question of fact is which monument was intended to control the Deed being retraced?
Generally the last survey prior to Patent will control the Patent. So if the Government did a dependent resurvey and set monuments in a Township still in public domain and failed to find the originals set some years prior nonetheless the new monuments will control the Patents made after the resurvey. As long as the land is in the Public Domain the government can survey it as many ways as it would like to.
Kent
32 white male,east central mississippi. Survey party crew chief.new to forum! Wanted to introduce myself.hello!