PLSS / Deed Interpretation

Aliquot part descriptions are the best!

I wanted to retire in Custer at one point in my life. Worked there for three years resurveying T. 3 S., R. 4 E ., yes the township that Custer is in.

I have a lot of pipe in that township.

Keith

I run into those deeds all the time, in fact I think it is the "norm" in this part of the state, and generally the intent is to reference the aliquot parts/lines, but the opposite does happen.

This type of description is a text book example of an ambiguous description, which means they are "uncertain in meaning, especially one that is revealed by the text or by extrinsic evidence other than direct evidence of the writer’s intention when that intention contradicts the plain meaning of the text.”

Therefore you must go outside the deed to find further evidence of the intent; such as adjoiner deeds, actions of the landowners (occupation,etc.), parol and/or any other relevant evidence that will lead you to the intent.

I've found quite a few of yours myself, from the full-blown 30in long brass capped pipes down to those little copper welds on mineral surveys and intersection points. One section corner is within a half mile of the Forest Service office and it was nothing but ledgerock, so rather than set a rock tab the crew just set a regular 30in pipe on the surface of the ledgerock and then made a huge pile of stone around it to hold it upright. If you grab the cab and wiggle it around it's not exaclty what I would call "firmly set", but then again it's been there over 40 years, so it's doing its job.

One section corner is in the back yard of the Post Office, at least it was in 1968!

I know a few over on that side of the state that has done that. I heard montepiliar has some big ole messes.

As they say, the contrary can be shown.

Had one just last week that read much like that. The key was extra research and knowing the guy who did the splitting up of the parent tract.

This real estate agent/farmer/developer purchased an aliquot part, i.e., the west half of the northwest quarter of the section. First piece he sells is in the northwest corner: Beg. at NWC, go 330 south, go 330 east, go 330 north, go 330 west.

The next tract is my tract: Beg. at SWC of parent tract, go 1320 east, go 330 north, go 1320 west, go 330 south.

Next tract is identical to my tract except: Beg. 330 north of SWC of parent tract.......

So on and so forth until he had whittled up everything into about 10 or 12 tracts. The key was found in the last tract split off which fell between several to the north and several to the south. It read: Beg. 1320 feet south of the NWC, go east parallel to north section line 1320 feet, go 337.4 feet south, go 1320 feet west parallel to south line of parent tract, go north 341.9 feet.

Incredibly, the east-west dimesnion is very close to 1320 feet at both ends. As you can see from above, he intended for each parcel to be 330 feet north and south except for the final piece of the puzzle which was whatever the remainder was based on his measurements.

I knew the old boy and did several surveys for him when he was in his mid-80's and still selling tracts wherever he could make another dollar. He had finally wised up and realized he needed parcels surveyed to satisfy the buyer's lenders as lending practices changed. He used similar practice after my surveys as he did years earlier when he was writing his own descriptions. He would build fences along the tract boundaries with steel posts except for large wooden corner posts next to each of my bars. The case cited above had been laid out similarly based on his own measurements. Each buyer could look at the fences and now they were buying from fence to fence.

It's a big question with lots of possibilities. I'd search for the answer in the law and not the technicalities of a proper aliquot part or the 1320's. If the line in question is an aliquot line with adjoiners then what effect does the 1320 club description have on it's location. The intent is important. Was their intent to keep some portion of the land say between the 1320 line and the aliquot line. Generally the law says that gaps are not left unless specifically reserved. So a new line is not created due to the poor description. The seller conveyed all of what he owned as his intent and there was no sliver left since it wasn't specifically intended.

It gets more complicated when the conveyance creates a new parcel from a larger say a part of a quarter section is conveyed out. They may have actually intended 1320 feet from some starting point ignoring the total that would would have been split by an aliquot division. Look at what was conveyed later (the remainder). Then you also need to gather all the occupation evidence to see what the owners did which may show the realized intent. What actions over time did the owners do that may have established the boundary. If its an open area with no physical boundary evidence its a different problem than where improvements have been in place for decades.

I've called them both ways, even different lines surrounding the same parcel. Each line needs to be evaluated according to all the evidence and then the law applied to that evidence.

Nothing's a 100% but don't buy into the idea that some guy that's been in the graveyard for decades still owns the gaps created by these poor methods of writing descriptions. You can spin the numbers technically all over he place but the law just doesn't support the resulting chaos. You're more likely to find the correct answer in law rather than your calculator.

I went through all this back when. Your chances are far greater to find the correct info now then back a few years. You can search the law quickly these days, whereas you needed to go to a law library. Keep searching for the truth and keep asking the questions. A question never asked and answered only perpetuates ignorance.

Yes, this corner of the state is notorious for a lack of clear and concise descriptions and/or any kind of past survey records. Here, the average "deed staker" can quickly either become frustrated or even worse, start pitting neighbor against neighbor. It happens far too often.

They are only messes if the only tools you know how to use are measurement tools.

Hear that.

When I see "660'" or "1320'" I shift into aliquot part mode almost without thinking, unless I see a surveyor as the author. Further research, field search, and consideration of adjoiner descriptions may make me change my mind...

I also vote for going to the original deed. You don't have any excuse for not doing it. I've found some pretty helpful descriptions back there.

Many old lawyers loved to show off their "knowledge" of surveying, and altered the descriptions accordingly as time went on. Of course, most land sales occurred without surveys.

Of course, if the original deed said that, I'd still be suspicious that it was an aliquot description. All the US Patents I've run into are aliquot.

When I see descriptions like 1320 or 660, I usually think of aliquit parts, but it depends, mainly on occupation, fences, found corners etc.

Another clue in the Description about intent could be the direction calls, North, East etc.. But as noted above other evidence of all owners and their descriptions joining the tract must be dug out along with looking at the original deed description that created the different tracts. Perhaps seniority of the deeds could be the guiding light.
jud

Like several have said, it's ambiguous. You can't determine it's location by the language in the deed, and you need to look at ground evidence, adjoining deeds, and maybe both this deed and adjoiners' back to their own origins.

Looks like your bird is vomiting

Looks like your bird is vomiting there, Bro.
What's the problem.
I'm here to help.
🙂
Don

Actually it does not depend. The deed WILL and MUST be interpreted at the time of its writing in consideration of the circumstances and language usages at the time.

Unfortunately, this legal stuff does not clear it up usually. But it is not a random guessing game either.