PLSS Discussion (Is Keith awake?)

PLSS Discussion (yes Keith is awake?)

Yep awake!

Take the stone and don't look back.

This is the result of the bogus theory of Bouman-Robillard who believe that the "TRUE" center 1/4 sec. cor. is at the exact intersection of the center lines and nowhere else. Obviously, any existing corner monument that is not at that "TRUE" intersection point can be ignored.

This damnable bogus theory has to be addressed by BLM top management, as some of their own surveyors believe this bogus theory and practice it.

Again, see Frank Willis's thread on an ongoing BLM subdivision of section survey in his State and this bogus theory is being used.

Keith

PLSS Discussion (yes Keith is awake?)

I just don't understand the concept of doing a new section breakdown whenever there is a resurvey somewhere in the section.

It almost never happens here in Ohio, the origin of the PLSS. By the end of the 1840's the GLO was basically finished in Ohio and we said goodbye to them after their records were delivered to the Auditor of State by 1849. Our own courts and surveyors have seemed to be able to handle the issues since that time.

PLSS Discussion (yes Keith is awake?)

Hold the stone IF no one has relied on the rebar.

PLSS Discussion (yes Keith is awake?)

> Hold the stone IF no one has relied on the rebar.

If no one has/relied on the rebar? It wouldn't be there if it wasn't needed for a boundary, don't you think?

PLSS Discussion (yes Keith is awake?)

It depends.

A couple of questions from a M&B guy that knows just enough about PLSS to get in real trouble.

- I am certainly not up on the nuances of a "dependant resurvey", but how could they do one without tying in all available evidence? I would certainly think they should have been working with the C4 if it was there in 1890.

- If they didn't locate / use / find the C4 in 1890, how confident are you that the stone really is the original C4 stone. Is it marked? Does it match original description?

- Is there any possibility that the 1890 survey concluded it was in the wrong place and disregarded it? I know, I know - an original corner can't be wrong, but is this a possibility?

- If the stone had not been previously used or relied upon or even known about and people have relied in good faith on the rebar, does that give the rebar any validity?

What about ownership? Has the section been owned by a single person since 1890 and the rebar was used as a corner to cut out a piece? If so, does the corner of the cut out piece necessarily have to be at the legal C4 - the stone? Or could the cut out piece be where people wanted it?

Just a few questions from someone who doesn't know a heck of a lot.

PLSS Discussion (yes Keith is awake?)

> It depends.

Okay, how can anyone argue with that? All I can say, is that I absolutely can't imagine breaking down a section, finding all the opposing ¼ corners, and driving in a C-¼ unless I needed it for control. I cringe every time I see multiple corner monuments. That means to me, that someone took the time to drive them in, and that there is going to be at least one conflict in common boundary lines.

My presumption is that it someone would have relied on it as a rule, and not an exception.

Excellent questions!

Especially the one about the ownership!

Title Insurance

Well, here's what your client's title insurance agent may have read about the issue:

http://www.cmetro.ctic.com/TitleIssues/v12n1.pdf

Talking about value pricing a survey. Property must be insurable to have marketable title. If one can't convince the title company to insure over the survey exception then the survey might not have much value.

The second article is a shameless plug for the company, but the first is pretty well put forth. I think Keith will particularly enjoy the reference to GPS v. chaining. If surveyors can't appreciate Keith's old work at least the title industry can.

> - I am certainly not up on the nuances of a "dependant resurvey", but how could they do one without tying in all available evidence? I would certainly think they should have been working with the C4 if it was there in 1890.

They couldn't. A dependant resurvey is the same as all the resurveys we all do almost all the time. They are tasked with figuring out where the original corners were, just as you are when you retrace a "metes-and-bounds" survey.

> - If they didn't locate / use / find the C4 in 1890, how confident are you that the stone really is the original C4 stone. Is it marked? Does it match original description?

One of the biggest points of arguments we have all the time; it is no different (in my opinion) when you find rebars for regular city subdivision corners, or metes-and-bounds corners that are not called for on the original plat or in the deed. My general rule is to presume it to be correct unless I find enough evidence to overcome the presumption. (from your posts, I think you have a different spin on that, but the way to handle it is like any other 'uncalled-for corner'.)

> - Is there any possibility that the 1890 survey concluded it was in the wrong place and disregarded it? I know, I know - an original corner can't be wrong, but is this a possibility?

Yes. There is the same possibility in every corner. The problem is if it has been relied upon for many, many years. (Again, I don't think there is much difference in the evaluation of evidence that you do in m&b states.)

> - If the stone had not been previously used or relied upon or even known about and people have relied in good faith on the rebar, does that give the rebar any validity?

Yes, it may be construed as being the controlling corner for everyone who has relied on it. But don't you imagine that the old stone was used at one time by someone? Why did a surveyor set it if it was not to use in a boundary survey. (Generally C-¼ corners aren't established on the original survey)

> What about ownership? Has the section been owned by a single person since 1890 and the rebar was used as a corner to cut out a piece? If so, does the corner of the cut out piece necessarily have to be at the legal C4 - the stone? Or could the cut out piece be where people wanted it?

It doesn't necessarily have to be the "legal C4. It can be a corner of the cut-out piece.

> Just a few questions from someone who doesn't know a heck of a lot.

Sounds like you know a lot, and maybe anticipated the above answers, but if not, those are my answers.

There seem to be situations where the stone is not the corner (so the BLM has informed me) but this certinally isn't one of them.

It's the stone, the stone and only the stone!

> There seem to be situations where the stone is not the corner (so the BLM has informed me) but this certinally isn't one of them.
>
> It's the stone, the stone and only the stone!

For the C/4, most definitely. For a property corner, maybe. Could be the ODOT corner for the property corners, then we need some revised descriptions for the deeds.B-)

PLSS Discussion (yes Keith is awake?)

Being an old highway right of way surveyor, I've seen a lot of these monuments set to control ROW's. They are often used for ties in new legals for ROW purchases. Moving the 16' over to the stone, might cause very little issue with property rights. Once the highway is built and the cooridoor established the easement tie is important but hardly a game changer.

Or ODOT maybe used it to build a brand new office complex. That would be a different story-but still the C1/4 has been sitting there for 140 years. Not it's fault nobody paid attention to it.

For a property corner, maybe. Could be the ODOT corner for the property corners

It maybe has become some kind of marker for possessive rights. But the C1/4 is still the stone. If the resurvey was an Independent Resurvey we would have a discussion.

Are both corners officially noted (recorded) at Centers of the section? I only ask because it is not uncommon around here to have 2 monuments representing two different corners. Real world example; County surveyor performs original subdivision of Section 2. Notes and plat show him finding all 1/4 corners and setting a stone marking the center of section at the intersection of the quarter lines. This survey was for a lot (and the only one noted on the plat) in the southwest 1/4. Move ahead 2 years. Same surveyor now surveys the NE 1/4. Notes and plat show starting at the east 1/4 corner, running west 40ch, set a stone to mark the SW cor of the NE 1/4, thence north to the previously found N 1/4 corner.
These corners today are about 50' apart and have been perpetuated by iron rods. The monument record on file shows both and are called out as locating the positions noted by the county surveyor. Fortunatly, as time progressed, the remaining land in the section was sold in a way that still makes both corners viable as to what they represent.
My point is, there is a possibility that the Center of Section is not the same as the interior corner of one of the Quarters. It's all in how they were used.

PLSS Discussion (yes Keith is awake?)

Keith, Where does the intersection of lines rule come from?

I looked at the 1805 law and 1832. They both call for equidistant between corners on the same line. So it would appear the surveyor instructions (butterfield at least) were correct (Lincoln was wrong). Surveyors should be looking for how the section was first halved, N-S or E-W, and then look halfway along that line for the stone or whatever representing the center.

When was the law changed to require intersection?

Were there any patents prior to the 1890 resurvey?

PLSS Discussion ( Keith is awake)

There are many great comments here and of course the solution may not be as flippant as I was.

I do remember that I argued for the iron pipe in the famous pipe v stone controversy, some time ago in Okla. Some of facts changed along the way in that case and ended up different then when it started, at least in my opinion.

I have in fact argued in a general way, that for instance a BLM iron post that has been in existence for many years, probably has more weight than a GLO original set stone that has not been seen for a hundred years and all of a sudden appears. I also know that this opinion is not shared by all in BLM!

It does come down to the use and acceptance of a corner monument as to whether it is a controlling monument.

My main objection of course is the fact that some believe that irregardless if there is an existing corner monument that is not at the TRUE intersection of the center lines, they can establish a new corner monument at that TRUE intersection point and ignore the existing close corner monument. This is argued to be the method of establishing the TRUE C 1/4 where it was meant to be according to the law and chapter 3 of the 1973 Manual and any other corner monument is simply a "property corner". Thus the rationale is that there is one and only C1/4 corner and everything else is ignored.

I have pointed out examples of this rationale and the end result is chaos with multiple corner monuments that are intended to be the same corner. One can imagine the confusion of the land owner and his wondering where to build the new fence?

Hence, it is never a black and white answer without research on an example like the opening post.

Keith

PLSS Discussion (yes Keith is awake?)

Duane,

I don't think that I have read in detail, the instructions that you refer to and if you have it available to quote it, I would be interested.

Keith