Multiple description blunders

This is a tough one. Carefully develop the chain of title to be sure you know what was sold and what was owned when it was sold again. (On can't sell what they don't own.)

This seems to happen most frequently when someone thinks they are selling an aliquot part but use a metes and bounds description to sell.

Good luck!

JAC

Posted by: @kevin-hines

does call to said west line

Be thankful for that, because it would be a bigger mess without it.?ÿ

The land owners have been maintaining the extra 72' since the mid 80's.

If that state has an acquiescence statute, nobody will challenge your conclusion of going to the aliquot line. If the adjoiner to the west had maintained it, you'd have a fight.

Posted by: @kevin-hines

?ÿNE corner of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the section.?ÿ ?ÿ

In regards to your question, I think you are on the right track, but at the risk of a hijack, this is a convoluted way to say S1/16 corner.?ÿ(Is?ÿ the SE corner of the NE1/4 of the SE1/4 a different corner?)

Did the BLM come along circa 1944 to 1958 and do some dependent resurveys? They did here and wooo doggies did they ever ignore some original evidence and other perpetuations of same to proportion in some real doozies that will haunt a fellows dreams for decades.

@aliquot?ÿ I have had the same thoughts for years regarding the way the attorneys & some gubmn't agencies insist an aliquot corner is called out in a description.?ÿ The education process has begun, but is rather slow to take effect.

Thanks for all of your comments.?ÿ I'm still investigating, or trying to, the significance of the 72' between the aliquot line and the body of the parcels if I hold the dimensions.?ÿ It isn't a roadway or easement.?ÿ?ÿ

@kevin-hines?ÿ

I know it doesn't solve your issue directly, but when I find such discrepancies I look for the possibility of transposed numbers that would create that difference, at least it could conceivably add merit to your argument.

@richard-germiller?ÿ Thanks... I hadn't thought about that possibility.

@kevin-hines?ÿ

You're Welcome, but isn't that part of the reason why we're all here.

@aliquot?ÿ

I would much rather say the S1/16 common to Sections 21 and 22, however it's not how the title people prefer to see it referenced (at least in my area).

Transposed numbers seems like a?ÿ possibility. Or, possibly, somebody might have got crossed up by a proposed right of way dedication that was never consummated.?ÿ ?ÿYou did not say whether the tax map had a 72' wide lot in that place? Absent all that the call to the line, confirmed by the occupation, would seem to be definitive.?ÿ

@norman-oklahoma

No, the tax map shows everyone being assessed to the aliquot line.?ÿ No indication of a 72' strip shown on the tax map.

Had a situation a bit like this years ago.?ÿ The owner of the north half of the northwest quarter of the section sold the east 45 acres.?ÿ Several years later he sold the west 35 acres.?ÿ If you surveyed each of those descriptions you would find a gap of 70 some feet between them of No-Man's-Land.?ÿ There was no dividing fence or anything to suggest occupation.?ÿ We decided the intent of the second sale was to sell all remaining.?ÿ Haven't heard from anyone in the intervening 30+ years since the survey, so we must have done the right thing.

If the tens and units digits are transposed, the result changes by 9(T-U).?ÿ So to get a difference of 72, the possible cases are xx08 vs xx80 and xx19 vs xx91.

Not that's the only copy mistake that people make.

Thank you all for the assist.?ÿ I haven't been in the office today to dig into this further, but will tomorrow.?ÿ Be safe!

Posted by: @mightymoe

@aliquot?ÿ

I would much rather say the S1/16 common to Sections 21 and 22, however it's not how the title people prefer to see it referenced (at least in my area).

The title people need to be educated then, don't they.?ÿ

@aliquot?ÿ

They're educated, they disagree. I write them that way also because a layman will understand it better. The NE corner of said SE1/4SE1/4 flows better and will connect to the preamble better.

@kevin-hines?ÿ i practice in a colonial state S.C., we run into craziness everyday it seems, a well thought out defensible argument is all you can do. ground evidence and occupation is what we hold to. still you get throwback. Good Luck and all be safe.

The last time the 40 acres was conveyed as a single aliquot parcel (SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4) was March 1980. The 40 acres was divided, one lot at a time for a total of 40 lots, by metes & bounds description without benefit of a survey of said 40, beginning in 1983. Each description started from either the SE corner or the NE corner of said 40 and worked west from there. The problem came to be due to the description being written using a prefect square of 1320' x 1320' when the GLO plat shows the bounds of the section being 83.23 ch (south) x 80.0 ch (west) x 83.5 ch (north) x?ÿ 80.0 ch (east), leaving all excess in the western tier of the 1/16th section. Since all of the deeds on the western tier call to the west line of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter, I am justified in my decision to disregard the east-west dimensions of the deeds in the western tier and show ownership to the "TRUE" aliquot line. Record and measured dimensions will be shown on my plat along with the "paper" aliquot line. an explanation of my interpretation of the facts will be outlined in the surveyor's notes, and a detailed surveyor's report will accompany the survey when it is delivered to the client.

I've never had such a large disagreement between the record documents and the evidence located in the field. I appreciate everyone's thoughts and theories. Your comments helped shake the cobwebs loose so I could think think this through.

@kevin-hines?ÿ

Thanks for sharing. We just had a fantastic presentation of this From the BLM Cadastral office and wow, what a nightmare of the process you walked into.

The whole idea that the north and western lines were to dispose of the excess and errors was a great way to make it work with what they had started with. Great work and again this site rocks because people like you and everyone else that openly share the daily grind for us.