Minnesota Supreme Court Case Regarding Center of Section Location

Just commenting on the case which was in 1927, long before Dykes:
It is not wise to base your opinions on a single case. The ruling is accurate, the center of section is at the intersection of the centerlines. The case has to do with reimbursement for fencing expenses. The defendant/respondent claims the fence is not on the centerline of section so they don't have to pay, apparently they like one of the two centers set. The Court here just says there is not sufficient evidence to support either one so they reverse the order. Presumably there was a new trial to determine if the fence was or was not on the boundary. If yes, the plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement. If no, then he is not. Just because someone set a rock out in a field that doesn't make it the center quarter. This is a wise decision also because there are two monuments, a trial needs to be held to determine where the corner is actually located.

I don't think Luntz is necessarily opposed to the fence corner in your scenario. It is a question of fact, measurements only being one piece of evidence. The Courts don't expect surveys to be perfect, especially old surveys. You already have the testimony of one owner, you should talk to the other owners to find out what they know.

hillsidesurveyor, post: 351179, member: 7292 wrote: 2) The terrain is wooded and hilly with except for a once cultivated field in the NW 1/4....

It's not specifically noted in Dykes v. Arnold, but the terrain in that area is mountainous and the undergrowth, being only a few miles from the coast, is so thick that you can't push through it. The roads and the occupation go where the geography allows, not where the cardinal section lines dictate. If the whole country was like this TJ would have been laughed at for his screwball PLSS survey idea. So it could be that the Oregon court made allowances for that without specifically saying so.

It's located at about 44å¡38'00" - 123å¡57'00".

I don't think that's what they're saying. In MN I would accept a center based on the best available evidence as the property line, even if some evidence tended to show it disagreed with the perfect carrying out of the prescribed method. Unless, the federal government had always retained title bordering that line. In which case I would hold it for all parties except the federal government.

I think this case gives authority for that position in part:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15957414547656368254&q=237+Minn.+439&hl=en&as_sdt=4,201

hillsidesurveyor, post: 351179, member: 7292 wrote: Looking for comments regarding the attached Minnesota Supreme Court Case of Lunz v Estate of Mary Sandmeier.

In this case a stone set in a survey like manner in about 1872 to mark the center of section was ignored. There was also another monument placed about 42 feet west of said stone in 1902 that was claimed to be set by appropriate government methods. If I am reading the case correct the court dismissed both stones and concluded that the true center is the location of the intersecting lines from opposing Quarter Corners.

This ruling goes against the 2006 Oregon case of Dykes v Arnold, but if surveying in MN one would have to abide by the laws of their respective state.

Below is a somewhat hypothetical situation of a survey of the NW 1/4 of a Section in rural MN:

1) The West and East 1/4 Corners are well established and have been accepted.
2) The terrain is wooded and hilly with except for a once cultivated field in the NW 1/4 near the Center of Section. The southeast corner of the field being the occupied Center of Section and the southwest corner of the field being 400 feet west of the Center of Section.
3) East-west fence between W 1/4 corner and Center of Section is reasonable strait, except for areas on a steep slope in the wooded areas. The line from the Center of Section to the East 1/4 Corner would be practically impossible to run being that there is a shear cliff of about 200 feet vertical drop approximately 1000 feet east of the Center of Section.
4) There is an ancient fence corner (East-West-North) at the occupied Center of Section with wire running through the center of large trees.
5) 95 year old owner of NW 1/4 who was born and raised on property states that fence has been used as the line as long as he can remember, but does not know if it was ever surveyed or how it was established.
6) Recent survey runs line between East and West Quarter Corners and marks the Center of Section 75' north of the occupied center. and fence post have been placed staking claim to this newly surveyed line.

If I find a survey monument at the occupied center, even if there is no known knowledge of when or how it was placed, I am doing a happy dance and calling it the Center of Section even though it doesn't fit the math.

Lunz v Sandmeier is saying the opposite. I suppose one could always claim title by adverse possession or acquiescence, but in my mind the quarter section line and occupation would be one in the same.

Your thoughts.

I'd suggest you research the states case law on boundary establishment. Whether by repose, acquiescence, agreement, reliance on some survey even if non record. There has got to be a ton of stuff there in the law.

Technically the quarter lines run straight between the quarter corners. Where boundaries have been established involves a lot more. It sounds like your section has already been broke down and occupied. The evidence and application of boundary law probably is beyond the ideal and initial instructions to find the intersection of the pure quarter lines. The actual answer is probably not in the technical measurement and calculation of a coordinate. I'd say at a minimum you'd need to show evidence that the occupied lines didn't meet your states boundary establishment law before you reject them. The boundary line and the protracted section breakdown lines may not be in the same place. The important line is the established boundary location and that can probably happen without any survey, licensed surveyor, recorded plat and such. It's the landowners that establish boundaries and they can do it in plenty of goofy ways in the eyes of a land surveyor.

Of course your states laws may be different than mine. In Utah our courts have basically said if the landowners treat some physically visible line as a boundary for 20 plus years it becomes a boundary. From my reading I think there are a few states where the description on paper rules all regardless of the landowners.

Also you should check and see if that 1927 decision is cited in more recent cases, whether it has become the long and established law in your state.

LRDay, post: 351210, member: 571 wrote: I'd suggest you research the states case law on boundary establishment. Whether by repose, acquiescence, reliance on some survey even if non record. There has got to be a ton of stuff there in the law.

Technically the quarter lines run straight between the quarter corners. Where boundaries have been established involves a lot more. It sounds like your section has already been broke down and occupied. The evidence and application of boundary law probably is beyond the ideal and initial instructions to find the intersection of the pure quarter lines. The actual answer is probably not in the technical measurement and calculation of a coordinate. I'd say at a minimum you'd need to show evidence that the occupied lines didn't meet your states boundary establishment law before you reject them. The boundary line and the protracted section breakdown lines may not be in the same place. The important line is the established boundary location and that can probably happen without any survey, licensed surveyor, recorded plat and such. It's the landowners that establish boundaries and they can do it in plenty of goofy ways in the eyes of a land surveyor.

Of course your states laws may be different than mine. In Utah our courts have basically said if the landowners treat some physically visible line as a boundary for 20 plus years it becomes a boundary. From my reading I think there are a few states where the description on paper rules all regardless of the landowners.

Also you should check and see if that 1927 decision is cited in more recent cases, whether it has become the long and established law in your state.

Yes, it can be much more difficult to determine than a retracement though. MN has three ways (other than adverse possession) to settle a line. Acquiescence (need uncertain deed line, and certain acquiesced line), Express agreement per Statute (I forget, but you can look it up on MN laws site), and Estoppel. But MN, like NY, has case law telling surveyors that fences and structures built at the time original stakes were likely in place, are the best evidence of the original line when those stakes have been lost. So, a proper retracement, considering this evidence, should be sufficient in most cases. No reason to send people to court, or rely on establishment doctrines over 100 year old structures and fences just because a modern measurement from a far distant point doesn't seem to line up.

Duane Frymire, post: 351212, member: 110 wrote: Yes, it can be much more difficult to determine than a retracement though. MN has three ways (other than adverse possession) to settle a line. Acquiescence (need uncertain deed line, and certain acquiesced line), Express agreement per Statute (I forget, but you can look it up on MN laws site), and Estoppel. But MN, like NY, has case law telling surveyors that fences and structures built at the time original stakes were likely in place, are the best evidence of the original line when those stakes have been lost. So, a proper retracement, considering this evidence, should be sufficient in most cases. No reason to send people to court, or rely on establishment doctrines over 100 year old structures and fences just because a modern measurement from a far distant point doesn't seem to line up.

Duane,

I agree and if you have the case law to accept the fences or occupation as the best evidence of the original boundary establishment that would be the best way to go.

The problem seems to be those that believe a retracement involves location the original GLO corners and then breaking down a section from there. I wouldn't consider that retracement. And yes, if it's unpatented Federal land the original GLO line would likely hold for the Fed boundary.

Duane Frymire, post: 351206, member: 110 wrote: I don't think that's what they're saying. In MN I would accept a center based on the best available evidence as the property line, even if some evidence tended to show it disagreed with the perfect carrying out of the prescribed method. Unless, the federal government had always retained title bordering that line. In which case I would hold it for all parties except the federal government.

I think this case gives authority for that position in part:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15957414547656368254&q=237+Minn.+439&hl=en&as_sdt=4,201

The case you referenced establishes the "40" line by midpoints and the center of section is located per mathematical breakdown. I don't see how it shows that interior section corners monuments that don't fit the mathematical breakdown can be accepted.

hillsidesurveyor, post: 351216, member: 7292 wrote: The case you referenced establishes the "40" line by midpoints and the center of section is located per mathematical breakdown. I don't see how it shows that interior section corners monuments that don't fit the mathematical breakdown can be accepted.

Read the case carefully. The Court says the Appelant did not contest the method, therefore it was not before them. They are not ruling in favor of mathematical breakdowns, they just aren't ruling on that at all because it's not argued on appeal.

Notice the manhole cover at the center quarter is not questioned as to precision, they approve of its use. The defendant is contending the accepted controlling corners are incorrect which the Court here disagrees with.

hillsidesurveyor, post: 351216, member: 7292 wrote: The case you referenced establishes the "40" line by midpoints and the center of section is located per mathematical breakdown. I don't see how it shows that interior section corners monuments that don't fit the mathematical breakdown can be accepted.

4) There is an ancient fence corner (East-West-North) at the occupied Center of Section with wire running through the center of large trees.
5) 95 year old owner of NW 1/4 who was born and raised on property states that fence has been used as the line as long as he can remember, but does not know if it was ever surveyed or how it was established.

That's the dilemma. It's been there for a long time, it's been treated as the boundary BUT, you can't produce a plat, survey record, county surveyor ties or name of surveyor or testimony of a survey being done. So then you are standing there with your survey rod, rover, whatever, 75 feet from the tree with the wire in it and the landowners saying it's always been considered the boundary. So does the coordinate of near perfect section breakdown control or that old tree without a proper pedigree? Then if you really want to get anxious, does that tree control every other 1/16 corner and below in the entire section, I mean there's no damn end to it is there. There must be a better way!

If someone can post a case where the court said the old fence must represent some survey of old even with no records to prove it I'd like to read it. What I've seen is the rule of repose, it's there, it's been there a long time, folks rely on it, so we ain't messing with it! So the question is why do surveyors mess with it? Yup, you're standing there looking at that tree and what you do know about it, do you go with the computer or your gut. If you accept the tree, how do you explain and justify it? Another question, if you accept the coordinate, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT (messing with - moving- established boundaries)? From what I've seen most don't explain much of anything.

hillsidesurveyor, post: 351216, member: 7292 wrote: The case you referenced establishes the "40" line by midpoints and the center of section is located per mathematical breakdown. I don't see how it shows that interior section corners monuments that don't fit the mathematical breakdown can be accepted.

The court accepted corners by local repute. Why would it be any different if it was center of section? There are also "correct" mathematical ways to position the corners they accepted.

The only way that I know of to locate the Center of Section Corner in most state that have adopted the BLM method for section subdivision is to by some means to determine the location of the 4 Quarter Corners and intersecting lines between them. If in the past some previous surveyor followed this method and set a monument for the Center Quarter Corner and you have records of this then that would be the corner if he shows he followed the correct process, even if the monument is not in the mathematical center of section. The case law many are debating on here is more applicable to boundary lines not Quarter Section lines which are not always one and the same. Research old BLM Manuals and instructions to the Deputy Surveyors from the time period of the 2 stone monuments. I have seen one such that gave an accepted method for determining the Center Quarter Section Corner as setting it at the midpoint of the East to West line between the Quarter Section Corners

LRDay, post: 351220, member: 571 wrote: 4) There is an ancient fence corner (East-West-North) at the occupied Center of Section with wire running through the center of large trees.
5) 95 year old owner of NW 1/4 who was born and raised on property states that fence has been used as the line as long as he can remember, but does not know if it was ever surveyed or how it was established.

That's the dilemma. It's been there for a long time, it's been treated as the boundary BUT, you can't produce a plat, survey record, county surveyor ties or name of surveyor or testimony of a survey being done. So then you are standing there with your survey rod, rover, whatever, 75 feet from the tree with the wire in it and the landowners saying it's always been considered the boundary. So does the coordinate of near perfect section breakdown control or that old tree without a proper pedigree? Then if you really want to get anxious, does that tree control every other 1/16 corner and below in the entire section, I mean there's no damn end to it is there. There must be a better way!

If someone can post a case where the court said the old fence must represent some survey of old even with no records to prove it I'd like to read it. What I've seen is the rule of repose, it's there, it's been there a long time, folks rely on it, so we ain't messing with it! So the question is why do surveyors mess with it? Yup, you're standing there looking at that tree and what you do know about it, do you go with the computer or your gut. If you accept the tree, how do you explain and justify it? Another question, if you accept the coordinate, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT (messing with - moving- established boundaries)? From what I've seen most don't explain much of anything.

Yes Leon, there is a case in MN that says fences are best evidence when monuments are gone. I'll look it up. But, of course it's never that simple and sometimes establishment doctrines are necessary.

The HUGE problem with the belief that the center corner is at the intersection of lines connecting the four quarter corners is that one must first apply a HUGE amount of common sense as to the validity of the so-called quarter corner monuments. Just because you drove up to an apparent corner and found a 1" iron pipe does not mean a damn thing on its own. In almost every case there will not be four ORIGINAL and UNDISTURBED monuments that have multiple levels of documentation to prove they are, in fact, ORIGINAL and UNDISTURBED. Perhaps once should seek out the most likely true location of the center of section and then work backwards to see if there are matching quarter corners in existence, just not located where the easily found shiny whatever can be found that was stuck there in 1978 by some jakeleg in a hurry to make a buck.

Bushwhacker, post: 351223, member: 10727 wrote: The only way that I know of to locate the Center of Section Corner in most state that have adopted the BLM method for section subdivision is to by some means to determine the location of the 4 Quarter Corners and intersecting lines between them. If in the past some previous surveyor followed this method and set a monument for the Center Quarter Corner and you have records of this then that would be the corner if he shows he followed the correct process, even if the monument is not in the mathematical center of section. The case law many are debating on here is more applicable to boundary lines not Quarter Section lines which are not always one and the same. Research old BLM Manuals and instructions to the Deputy Surveyors from the time period of the 2 stone monuments. I have seen one such that gave an accepted method for determining the Center Quarter Section Corner as setting it at the midpoint of the East to West line between the Quarter Section Corners

OK, so who is the acceptor-in-cheif?

Yeah, I was taught that in a college class about 15 years ago. It was probably on the test. I don't believe it anymore.

Now if you work for the BLM surveying the owners property, might be OK but it depends.

I've read a lot of case law, don't believe I ever seen that stated as the law, the proper method thing, but I'm open to the case if I ever come across it.

I can agree with the boundary lines vs the protracted section lines. Once the boundaries are established the protracted breakdown line is irrelevant. Use them when you don't have an established boundary to establish the boundary, then after that they become irrelevant other than some math or so called proper procedure exercise or comparison. Now if you work n a state that doesn't have any boundary establishment law, go for it.

"If in the past some previous surveyor followed this method and set a monument for the Center Quarter Corner and you have records of this then that would be the corner if he shows he followed the correct process, even if the monument is not in the mathematical center of section."

This line of "thinking" is quite prevalent it seems. It says that we must prove the current location of the C1/4 (not currently at the exact bearing-bearing intersect) was "set by a licensed surveyor using proper methods before it can be accepted" and has been advocated by quite a few so-called "experts". The only problem is that this "theory", "law", or whatever, is not supported by the BLM Manual - in fact, it is directly contradicted by the Manual. The problem is, we must read beyond Chapter 3 to find it.

If this supposed "rule" is so simple and plain why isn't it simply and plainly stated in the BLM Manuals and/or by the courts??

Most surveyors don't even become familiar with the portions of Chapter 3 beyond those that show the section breakdown methods that are the preferred or correct methods. One does not even need to get out of Chapter 3 to see that there is no need to verify that "correct" methods were used in order to accept an established corner.

å¤3-132 states that the Federal government contemplated that the local surveyor would be the one to subdivide the sections.

å¤3-135 states that the BLM assumes no control over the work of the local surveyor and that the Manual is merely advisory and explanatory.

And perhaps the clearest statement of the principle of not elevating math, measurement, and methodology too high can be found in the 5th paragraph of å¤3-137:

A decision to set aside previously fixed local survey subdivision corners must be supported by evidence that goes beyond mere demonstration of technical error, reasonable discrepancies between former and new measurement, and less than strict adherence to restoration and subdivision rules. Were the Federal Government [or the local surveyor] obliged to open the question as to the location of a particular tract or tracts over technical differences or reasonable discrepancies, controversies would constantly arise, and resurveys and readjudication would be interminable. The law gives these activities repose.

Translation: Right or wrong, what's done is done, so don't kick a sleeping bear.

eapls2708, post: 351276, member: 589 wrote: .. Right or wrong, what's done is done, so don't kick a sleeping bear.

Bravo, Evan. The role and authority of the civil surveyor IS explained very well within the Manual.

When I worked for the Highway Dept. there was an esprit de corps that the department was comprised of "Government" surveyors, and held an authority above other licensed surveyors. I never cottoned to the idea, but it was a prevalent tumor within the department. Terms were thrown around like "the TRUE center of section". This, of course, was the mathematical location derived by a department surveyor, and no one else. After I left, one of the more arrogant believers of this poppycock was elevated (through attrition) to department head. For a number of years there not only were plenty of C/4 corners reset by calculated means and ignoring significant existing corners and evidence; the practice started bleeding over to 1/4 corners (which every "government" surveyor knows the TRUE location of these lie halfway and on line between section corners).

Only within the last couple of years has that practice been questioned...but the damage is done. Almost every section that a highway runs through has been mutilated by ignorance and arrogance over the last thirty years.

eapls2708, post: 351276, member: 589 wrote: Translation: Right or wrong, what's done is done, so don't kick a sleeping bear.

And my favorite...Wallace v. Fordyce Lumber
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8221492567310594211&q=wallace+v.+fordyce+lumber&hl=en&as_sdt=1006&as_vis=1

STARE DECISIS, ET NON QUIETA MOVERE

DDSM:beer:

The one thing I said which most everyone who responded seems to have missed is if your state has adopted the BLM method, as in your state board. If that is the case you can are going to have some problems not following the correct method that they spell out. What Mr. Cash states is the root of the problem as most surveyors do not do enough to establish the original position of the 1/4 corners. One of the best quotes I ever heard was at Little Rock from Dennis M. " Every Corner must stand on it own based on it's record" it is kinda hard to explain to a court why you accepted a Rock or a fence corner or whatever if you can not come up with some history of how it got there.