Dane,
> Thanks Adam for your post. I agree with you that the line will be skewed. I am trying to use the plat and preserve what is on the plat. Based upon the plat the line will be skewed. If those lots were patented, they were entered upon based upon the plat. We cannot now come back and "FIX" that "problem".
>
The kind of skew that your solution would make is significant, and more importantly, if the line were skewed this amount, you could not have 20.025 and 20.025 on each of the north lines (and/or you would not have 20 chains & 20 chains on the south line). If you change those line distances, your formula will no longer result in the lot line distance you came up with. Something's gotta give with the numbers you use. (but that gives me an idea).
> For my own benefit, is there some place in the manual that leads you to believe that the line MUST be equal to the mean? I ask because,my opinion would be that you need evidence to support a position at variance with the plat. A review of the notes may provide evidence that you are correct. But again, I would tread carefully, if these lots have been patented.
>
No, I have nothing in the manual that says this (as far as I know). I am trying to figure out where the draftsman got those numbers. I am trying to figure what he used to come up with areas. I am only saying that the interior line must be close to the mean for the formulae to work. It is the check you use check that you did not make an arithmetic error when calculating parenthetical distances (as you know).
>
> We have not discussed retracement. No doubt a true and accurate retracement of these lots will be very, very interesting.
I won't argue that your answer is wrong, per se, as I don't have the "right" answer. I have considered your solution carefully, and I don't have "checks" that make it jive in my opinion. I don't know that the original survey ever staked the lots. A retracement of the section may help me, but may not. So far we have found monuments for the section corners, but not the originals.
Thank you very much for your help.
Tom
Dane,
Areas on lots on plats are not definitive or controlling. They can provide guidance on how the lots were constructed. They do not control.
If you wanted acreages to control subdivision of section you would find that you have one hell of a mess. ['Where in the Manual is this procedure described??'] Well you have to also 'protect the south half of the quarter. You also have to protect the rest of the section.
It happens but rarely that the draftsman creating the plat makes a mistake. Those misstakes cannot override the fundamental principals of the PLSS or the statutes that control it.
Acreage can help you figure it out.
In this case no one has produced notes for the job which are mandatory to understand what happened. Likewise the north boundary. Also the township to the north.
Take the meanders and try to match them up to the plat and see what it tells you about assumptions made about subdivision.
I have never seen a GLO or BLM plat that didn't attempt to deal with following the laws as depicted in the 1805 act. It just doesn't happen, except of course that mistakes ARE MADE. mistakes do not control, the law controls, the intent of the GLO controls which is pretty clearly stated in law and practice.
You cannot convince me that GLO correctly created ANY plat with a bent E-W centerline of section, or centerline of a quarter section.
Whoever taught you different that 'areas' are protected at all cost, was WAY OFF BASE.
Sorry.
- jlw bye
PS, yes the plat has to be protected, but you have to understand the constraints under which it was created and the methods by which it was created. The acreages are computed from some assumption about how the subdivision was done. That is ALWAYS in some way traceable to law. If the acreages do not follow they do not control. The plat controls, not the acreages. The acreages are but one element of evidence of how the section was divided where there are options. If the acreages contradict common sense you have to move on to try to gain further insight. In this case no one has.
By the way, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the 40.05 is to the MC, and not a dimension of the quarter. Most plats assume acreages based on nominal 40's and 20 ch dimensions as is clear from this same plat.
However absent a complete record nothing is certain.
Dane,
Thank you Mr. Wahl. What you say makes good sense, and your expertise is highly appreciated.
I appreciate everyone who took the time to look at this. It is incredibily helpful to get everyone else's take on this type of situation and right or "wrong" it is good to know the thoughts other's have.
If anyone has any additional thoughts, you might consider emailing me at my profile address. I don't need to beat this to death on hear unless you think you have some open points to make on the public forum.
Tom
Adam
I have 20.05 and 20 for lots 5 and 4 across the north line. Across the south line I have 20 for bothe lots. When I consider Butch's solution I get a wildly different answer for the east line of lot 4 21 something chains.
jwahl
Did I say anywhere that I was trying to protect the plat at ALL costs. No sir I did not say that or suggest that anywhere. I gave my answer based upon what evidence had been presented. I justified my rational based upon BLM training on how to do the calcs,ONLY.I ALSO indicated that the notes would need to be refered too. I well undestand that the notes and the plat need to be considered together. I never suggested otherwise. My
I am not so deluded to think that the PLSS is perfect. As to what is controling, there is no hard and fast rule about half of the cases fall down on the side of the notes and the other half fall down on the side of the plat.
last thoughts
it certainly seems to be a scriveners error in the acreage for lot 4 of Sec 4. None of the fractional lots to the west of Sec. 4 have acreage greater than nominal (avg. ~37A), even as the shortages in the north 1/4 mi are made up for as you go west (the west line of Sec 6 has 20.00 ch dim to NW cor of TWP)
