Legal status of Original PLSS Section and 1/4 corners

Darn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

You have opened a very divisive can of worms. Those who have profited greatly from ASSUMING all sorts of corners are lost do not want you opening the closet full of sins and exposing them to the rest of the world. Nevertheless, it is the right thing to do. In some cases, however, there will be longterm claims that will differ from your correct solution. They may be bona fide rights by the time you arrive on the scene. Now you have a duke's mixture of solutions that depend on precisely where you are within the subject section. One example being a town plat from decades or a century earlier that is partly or totally tied to incorrect corners.

This should bring on some entertaining discussion. Especially as so many are doing quickie-dickie surveys with GPS and skipping over contrary information because they never come close to seeing it. Theoretical center corners are a dime a dozen.

That is a conversation that can (and has) filled volumes.

Now according to statutes set out by the U.S. Government (and also adopted by many States) a PLSS corner's location is permanently fixed by the original survey. Case law over the location of 'lost' corners re-established is very different between lands still held by the sovereign and those that have passed to private ownership. One has to conceive that private occupation and stewardship of land may (and does) alter a boundary over time.

If boundaries have been established from an improperly re-established corner, those lines may still be held as bona fide boundaries, even after an original corner is discovered that conflicts with the re-established corner. The only cases I can remember where a "corner of common report or use" was disregarded and the original held as the correct corner was in cases where significant damages or loss of area was proven by the plaintiff or appellant.

As surveyors we need to be able to reconstruct a later subdivision boundary as it was originally set. This is primary to the fact that a missing or lost corner (retrieved at a later date) may not be congruent with said retraced boundary.

Future section work should probably utilize the correct existing corner, but may not affect an occupied boundary that was established from an incorrect corner. While accurately showing the location and relationship of the two corners is a survey component; rearranging existing boundaries and the bona fide rights they represent may not be.

You might want to read the U.S. Supreme Court case involving Longview Fibre, in western Oregon,or Washington. It addresses much of what you are questioning.

Gzr

I like to steal something I heard Chuck Karayan say once. Something to the effect that in my 35 +/- years of surveying I have never had 2 boundary surveys that were the same. Some of the multitude of things that may weigh in on such a sitiuation is if there is federal land boundaries affected and what state the situation occurs in.
Some years back a fellow surveyor I know recovered a 1/4 corner that had been missed by prior surveyors. Subdivisions were built based on a proportionate position. The found original indicated the previous proportionate position was off by a long stones throw. Federal lands in the vicinity. Caused quite a stir. Got not only the BLM involved, but also caught the attention and activity of the state congress persons.
In the end it was a HUGE group effort resulting in utilization of the Small Tracts Act land sales on the federal level and Lot Line Adjustments on the state level. Huge deal and Huge effort to clean up the mess.
And that is just one of a thousand stories on the subject.

Soooo, you want to be a surveyor.......

You must take it on a case-by-case evaluation. Rights may certainly have "ripened" based on secondary or incorrect corner positions. Sometimes a boundary might have been established on the original corner location and later properties based on "invalid" corner locations. You just can't make a rule that you always do one or the other.

You have to look @ case law on past problems. but you want to make sure the case you are looking at is the same set of surrounding circumstances as your particular case.

Sounds like the very long and previously debated "Pipe Vs.s Stone" thread from the old site. I don't have enough time to raise all the questions needed to be answered but there are a lot.
Any government land in the section? Since there is an old fence as you mentioned you most likely have clear reliance on the origin corner.
Is WI a recording state and by all means post some maps! lets get our Judge, jury and executioner hats out of the internet closet and go to work..

It depends..........
I'm very jaded about the subject......
There are so many exceptions.....I guess,,,,,waiting on a survey with the job #2000-0XX to be resolved, moving into the 16th year of the question you are asking about and some kinda resolution.

Haven't had any contact in a couple of years, maybe I'll be long retired before it's finally resolved

Jered McGrath PLS, post: 390060, member: 794 wrote: Sounds like the very long and previously debated "Pipe Vs.s Stone" thread from the old site. I don't have enough time to raise all the questions needed to be answered but there are a lot.
Any government land in the section? Since there is an old fence as you mentioned you most likely have clear reliance on the origin corner.
Is WI a recording state and by all means post some maps! lets get our Judge, jury and executioner hats out of the internet closet and go to work..

Thanks all for your posts. This isn't just about 1 corner, but lots of them. The corners set were almost all the time oak posts, 3-4" in diameter. As I recall, 5' long and pounded in 2'. I have seldom found any traces of rotted wood, but most of the time when I find something, it's a dark earth vertical post hole in the B Horizon formed when the wood rotted and was replaced by black dirt over the years. The other common original accessory was bearing trees, some of which can still be seen as stump holes. A very few around here are even alive and well.

Over the years though, land owners perpetuated corners by fencing, rock piles, tree blazes, and once I found where a cast iron pot with the bottom broken out was placed over the old wood post and filled with rocks and bricks. Of course, that's not original evidence.

Geezer, post: 390055, member: 466 wrote: You might want to read the U.S. Supreme Court case involving Longview Fibre, in western Oregon,or Washington. It addresses much of what you are questioning.

Gzr

http://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/1951/193-or-385-0.html

This one?

The legal status of the original monuments is they are the corners they were intended to represent.

If someone wanted to claim an established monument different from an existent original monument then the burden of proof is on them, it is very difficult to overcome an existent original if in fact that is what was found.

If the original monument no longer exists but there is an established monument in harmony with possession then the roles are reversed.

wfwenzel, post: 390064, member: 7180 wrote: ..Over the years though, land owners perpetuated corners by fencing, rock piles, tree blazes, and once I found where a cast iron pot with the bottom broken out was placed over the old wood post and filled with rocks and bricks. Of course, that's not original evidence.

It is not an original corner. Probably not even an accessory...but it can be. In lieu of no other physical evidence a boundary corner marked by demonstrative occupational and possessive display; if it falls within a geometric harmony to other corners set at the same time, has a pretty darn good chance of being considered the only available evidence of the original location.

The recovered original will always be the correct section corner, but it may not mark private property boundaries.

aliquot, post: 390131, member: 2486 wrote: The recovered original will always be the correct section corner, but it may not mark private property boundaries.

The BLM seems to disagree on the idea that the original is always the section corner

MightyMoe, post: 390148, member: 700 wrote: The BLM seems to disagree on the idea that the original is always the section corner

Got a source for that?

I can give you an example of where they rejected an original they felt had been disturbed, even though 50 plus years of break downs all pointed to it as being the original. So BLM set a new one ... and left the original in place. Talk about confusing.....It's all in their notes. :bomb:

aliquot, post: 390131, member: 2486 wrote: The recovered original will always be the correct section corner, but it may not mark private property boundaries.

If the original monuments are existent then they mark the boundary corners. In order to have some other location mark the boundary then a written transfer is required or adverse possession (difficult in many states) or an enforceable establishment under the State's common law establishment doctrines (difficult in the face of the original, existent monuments). The key thing to understand about establishment is the boundary has not moved in the eyes of the law; the original monuments being existent makes it evident the new location would be within the Statute of Frauds.

wfwenzel, post: 390157, member: 7180 wrote: Got a source for that?

I have a township with original corners about 1500' from the 1950 dependent resurvey corners and the BLM's opinion stated to me is that the dependent corners hold over the originals,,,,,,,Mostly private lands and minerals with FED and state mixed around.

There are several areas in Oklahoma where 1899 dependent resurveys were performed and the notes state "no evidence of the original (1870) monuments could be found". They didn't look very good...a lot of them are still there, some with original accessories (BTs)...and no evidence of the latter resurvey can be found. Several are obviously pencil-whipped. On the ground, surveyors (and private parties) have been honoring the originals since established. The differences are not insignificant, some approaching 2 chs.

Thankfully there are no federal interests in the area. Although the majority of it was originally "surplus allotments" for Native citizens, it has all passed to private ownership with no trust lands involved.

One colleague of mine actually inquired with the BLM to explain a few years ago. The written response was laughable. The BLM holds the latter dependent resurveys as the "record" survey...but then goes on to explain that field evidence and land use may indicate corners other than those of record may have been used over the years. No chit, Sherlock.

paden cash, post: 390176, member: 20 wrote: There are several areas in Oklahoma where 1899 dependent resurveys were performed and the notes state "no evidence of the original (1870) monuments could be found". They didn't look very good...a lot of them are still there, some with original accessories (BTs)...and no evidence of the latter resurvey can be found. Several are obviously pencil-whipped. On the ground, surveyors (and private parties) have been honoring the originals since established. The differences are not insignificant, some approaching 2 chs.

Thankfully there are no federal interests in the area. Although the majority of it was originally "surplus allotments" for Native citizens, it has all passed to private ownership with no trust lands involved.

One colleague of mine actually inquired with the BLM to explain a few years ago. The written response was laughable. The BLM holds the latter dependent resurveys as the "record" survey...but then goes on to explain that field evidence and land use may indicate corners other than those of record may have been used over the years. No chit, Sherlock.

Govt agencies don't deal with complex problems without clear answers very well. No one wants to rock the boat too much. Staff can write reports providing reasoning and offering solutions but those in authority easily find ways to avoid the issue. There is little upside and a lot of downside risk to the Chief who makes a difficult judgment call. Most of the upside benefit, if attainable, is generalized to the public at large. No one in govt wants to be labeled a troublemaker.

Couple this with are predilection to overly strict adherence to perceived rules and I wouldn't expect a solid answer. There is a rule that the latest survey controls but it doesn't apply to lands already patented out. Maybe 1899 predates the patents but even then lay patented aren't expected to have high end knowledge that there are two sets of corners especially when the second set doesn't exist. But this takes reasoning and persuasion and the Judge may disagree with me which is his right. The appellate court may disagree with the judge.