If there is no NW1/4 of the NW1/4... it is a Gov't Lot, the Deeds found all say NW NW, do you just assume they (attorneys, auditor's, realtor, etc.) meant the Gov't Lot?
erwsdot, post: 364590, member: 6038 wrote: If there is no NW1/4 of the NW1/4... it is a Gov't Lot, the Deeds found all say NW NW, do you just assume they (attorneys, auditor's, realtor, etc.) meant the Gov't Lot?
I would think you need to research the chain of title. Subsequent transfers may have had a different description from the original patent.
My first statement wasn't very clear. If an owner owned the whole NW 1/4 he might have sold the NW1/4 without concideration of government lots. Need to look at intent.
I have encountered situations where the entire quarter section was acquired by a single party then split later into fractional parts. Field verification is essential.
I own a tract that has appeared both as the west half of the southwest quarter and as Lots 3 & 4. Ignorant people writing ignorant deeds have made it impossible to know the true intent if there is no physical evidence very clearly suggesting one solution over the other. Everyone involved in the early deed writing have been dead for decades. Neither solution matches a large tree row and fence that have been used by the adjoiners as if it were the true boundary.
erwsdot, post: 364590, member: 6038 wrote: If there is no NW1/4 of the NW1/4... it is a Gov't Lot, the Deeds found all say NW NW, do you just assume they (attorneys, auditor's, realtor, etc.) meant the Gov't Lot?
Go to the patent, see how it was done, no doubt the feds described it as Lot 4, then proceed from there.
There is a site that shows patents, hopefully it was never combined then split again, that's what I found for the last two I did, so I was lucky........
If the original grantor only owned the one government lot the intention is pretty clear. If he owned more it would depend...
Was there an area given? Is there occupation? Is there local president? Are there clues in the chain of title...
If you decide that it is not the same as the government lot how do split the pseudo aliquot part? Do you treat it like a normal aliquot division? Do you do it by area with parallel lines?...
aliquot, post: 364610, member: 2486 wrote: Is there local president?
"precedent" (I don't like being part of the spelling police, but sometimes I can't help myself)
I blame autocorrect.
Tom Adams, post: 364613, member: 7285 wrote: "precedent" (I don't like being part of the spelling police, but sometimes I can't help myself)
aliquot, post: 364614, member: 2486 wrote: I blame autocorrect.
I hear that.
mee to
Dang it, Tom. You beat me to it. Eye mist owt.
Holy Cow, post: 364628, member: 50 wrote: Dang it, Tom. You beat me to it. Eye mist owt.
I tried to catch the fog. I mist!
HAR HAR HAR
I've seen the description for a 1/4-1/4 many times where it appears the proper description should have named a government lot. More often than not, it turns out to be that the government lot is the correct interpretation of the present description, but as others have said, you need to research the chain of title to see whether or not the entire 1/4 was under common ownership and the subject parcel conveyed out of it. If so, the correct description is whatever was used for that creating conveyance.