It has been used to subdivide the whole WEST half of the section.
You have to set the E C1/16. That's the one Half way between the C1/4, and the E1/4. For our example, ALL the 8 corners in this section are original. Bona fide GLO. (Not very often, but this is just a made up one!)
Do you short things E-W, by 85' and prorate in the E C1/16? If you do, you short Both of these 40's by 42.5'.
So, should the owners of these 40's endure the shortage, just because some moron decided to STUBB off the C1/4 corner, from the S1/4 corner, and got a poor compass brg to set it in?
The EXISTING C1/4 is an old pine knot, and has been in place, and use since the 1940's. First the SW1/4, then the NW1/4. Shopping center is in place now.
My point is, that the owner of the NE1/4-SE1/4 and the SE1/4-NE1/4 was NEVER involved with the survey of the W1/2 of the section. Should he suffer, because he did not patrol the REST of the surveying that was going on in the Section? Where should the E C1/16 be set? From the EXISTING Pine knot, or from the BB int?
This is sort of a made up scene, but it's easier than the real cases, where there are more things going on... like missing original mons etc.
What would you do? Make the adjoiners to the EXISTING C1/4 mon endure the old use mon, and then use the REAL BBint to set the E C1/16?
Or would you penalize the guy that owns the SE1/4-NE1/4 and the NE1/4 SE1/4?
(Whatever I do, it will have a pretty plat, and north arrow!-Grin)
Nate
The existing C1/4 sounds like an original monument to me, so yes, use it to subdivide the east half of the section unless there is already an Center East 1/16th corner established.
1940 was 22 years before I was born.
See Dykes vs Arnold, Oregon.
See Dykes vs Arnold, Oregon.🙂
Is there any difference in the rationale of a landowner in the SE1/4SE1/4 and finds out that the north 1/4 is two chains to the east of where it was supposed to be, thereby shorting the acreage?
Or does the landowner simply get 40 acres with 20 chains on each side?
That's right.
Someone cause the north-south centerline of the Section to be Surveyed so that they could improve the west half. It has been quite a while.
Or do we argue over what is original or not?
Remember the bogus theory does ignore any previous evidence to the section subdivision lines.
This situation is usually used as an excuse for the "straight-line" surveyors. Usually what is argued is that "it isn' fair to the rest of the landowners in the section if the C1/4 isn't placed at the exact B-B interestion." Well, BS! As far as I know, no one has repealed the property boundary laws, yet. (Well, they have tried in Idaho).
Does the word repose mean anything or not? What about subsequent owners being bound by the actions (and inactions) of their predecessors? In the first place, the odds that most (if not all) of the parcels in the section have settled boundaries before you ever got out of your truck are rather good. Remember - resurvey vs original survey? If you are performing an original survey in the NE1/4SE1/4, and unless your client owns the entire section, chances are you are resurveying previously established boundaries. Just because a surveyor enters the section, does not mean everyone in the section must start moving their lnes around to satisfy the mathematical whims of the "surveyor".
> So, should the owners of these 40's endure the shortage, just because some moron decided to STUBB off the C1/4 corner, from the S1/4 corner, and got a poor compass brg to set it in?
The logical flaw in the assertion that the owners in the east half of the section will be "shorted" lies in the fact that if they have established boundaries (via fences or other definitive occupation), the location of the monumented C1/4 won't change that. If they *don't* have established boundaries, i.e. their ownership is evidenced only by the deed and there's no visible demarcation of ownership on the ground, then there's nothing to short except paper dimensions, which have always yielded to bona fide physical establishment.
Yes Brian, I have heard that kind of testimony before.....it just ain't fair!!
Why isn't the same argument used when a landowner or surveyor finds a 1/4 cor. or a sec. cor. in the PLSS out of position and not at the record 40s and 80s? Is somebody getting cheated and it just is not fair?
Some should read and reread the Oregon case mentioned above, until they understand how the courts look at the problem.
Boundaries are about monuments, not just measured precise distances.
Keith
OK, so the consensus here is to USE the C1/4 as previously established?
Personally, I don't think I'd have a problem, using the Calc BB int C1/4, to survey the NE1/4-SE1/4, and then later, to survey the NW1/4-SE1/4, to YIELD to the one on the ground, from long ago.
The point being to CONFINE the screwball C1/4- to the C1/4 and to it's immediate vicinity, but to use the BB int one for the rest of the section.
What I am getting at, is that 'YOUR' professional opinion should not be impinged by things, that a button pusher may get hung up on, and to think outside the box does not hurt.
N
OK, so now you have two sets of corners
In other words, you will end up with two sets of corners!
OK, so now you have two sets of corners
There are arguments on how to hold em and arguments on how to fold em, but no arguments on double sets of corners.
Nate,
I remember you, Keith, and I having this conversation in the past. I was about a timber company surveyor setting the C-N1/16 and C-W1/16 based upon the 'computed' C-1/4 corner and THEN 'yielding' to the existing C-1/4 monument. I think, at the time, that you thought this method was incorrect.
DDSM
Dan
At that time, I was delving into the concept of literally using 2 C/1/4's in a legal world.
At this point I have matured in the idea sufficiently, to be willing to possibly do just that. ESPECIALLY if it fit occupation better, and resulted in more community harmony.
N
> OK, so the consensus here is to USE the C1/4 as previously established?
Shocking, isn't it?
Dan, I don't remember the exact circumstance, but the idea of two corners for the C 1/4 sec. cor. where it is a regular C 1/4 on the GLO plat, is simply wrong.
This whole concept of aliquot part corners and property corners (two sets of monuments) is the bogus theory that I have repeatedly posted about.
Trouble is, some surveyors actually believe this bogus theory?
Keith
I think about it this way:
The first GLO surveyor was the first to divide the land. He was given a set of instructions and he went out and divided the land. well, for the most part, that's what he did. Sometimes he made mistakes and sometimes he didn't follow the instructions, but that will be for another thread. For now, we are talking about working in an bona fide, original section.
He set the four corners and the quarter corners, so those are the corners we have to yield to, they are original subdivision corners. Sometimes he set other corners; the center, meander corners, even sixteenth corners. We must yield to these corners too, as they are original.
Along comes EVERYBODY else and they are tasked with dividing up the remainder. The corners they set will also be original. They will be set based on instructions such as the current owner wishes. It is now our job to interpret the intent and to what extent that intent bears on our particular survey.
If Smith owns all of section six and sells to Jones the north half of section six; do the corners set for that survey, affect the way I survey Government Lot 4?
Think about it for a minute and a half and it will all come to you....:snarky:
Dugger
Everybody, read this and then read it again:
Along comes EVERYBODY else and they are tasked with dividing up the remainder. The corners they set will also be original.
And then:
If Smith owns all of section six and sells to Jones the north half of section six; do the corners set for that survey, affect the way I survey Government Lot 4?
Absolutely!
Did I just see a post by jud and now it is gone? Anyway, I copied this from that post.
Holding the GLO is not always the prudent thing to do when long term harmony by the owners has existed.
Absolutely right and is the basis for the bogus theory. The bogus theory of course, ONLY uses the original GLO protracted lines and ignores all the owners established lines.
Keith
I removed it Keith. Not liking the way it was reading all the way through and didn't want to create a problem. You did pick the intended focus of my post.
jud
