Disclaimer:?ÿ My PLSS knowledge is based on books and the knowledge shared by the members of this forum.?ÿ While I have surveyed in a sectional area, it is western Kentucky which is a state developed sectional area that (at least where I have been) has been largely usurped by metes and bounds.
The MI post was interesting in that it showed very clearly the problems you folks in those perfect little squares deal with on a daily basis that some of us metes and bounds guys might not appreciate as much.?ÿ A couple of things came to mind when I was looking at the plats and descriptions that were posted.
1)?ÿ In actual practice, how do you work with the descriptions that incorporate both specific dimensions that are clearly used because that is the number that the perfect aliquot part would have and an aliquot call??ÿ Barring any other items like occupation, is there any interpretation of the intent to be an aliquot part or does the introduction of the specific dimension become the controlling factor?
For example, in the 2 plats that were posted, one used the exact dimensions from one end and the other used the exact dimension from the other end of the aliqout part, letting the short fall into the neighboring property.?ÿ To me, it appears that there was an assumption of perfection made by someone not in the know.?ÿ Now, either someone is short or everyone is short.?ÿ Does that always go back to who received that dimensioned call first (barring other reasons for the line location) despite knowing it was an incorrect assumption of perfection in the beginning?
?ÿ
2)?ÿ It looked like one of the surveys may have tied into the 1/4 corners, but did not label the overall distance which would have showed the short in the neighbors property.?ÿ It seems that overall distance should be noted as it ties a monument used in the determination of the boundary.?ÿ Is it typical or unusual in your specific area of practice to see that overall dimension left off?
In actual practice, how do you work with the descriptions that incorporate both specific dimensions that are clearly used because that is the number that the perfect aliquot part would have and an aliquot call??ÿ
I don't know what everyone else does (yes we do, we could see it on the two examples posted), but I always pick up every PLSS corner for the entire section anyway, just to have them and check the aliquot parts, etc. It's saved my bacon enough to be SOP. Relying on others' previous work without lots of checks will eventually catch up to you.
?ÿ
Is it typical or unusual in your specific area of practice to see that overall dimension left off?
Honestly, it's the wild west here. You will regularly see things like what you saw;?ÿ some better, some worse, but much of the same. It's not supposed to be that way, but it is. Cut rate surveying is the name of the game here, and it's pretty easy to see where all the "shortcuts" get made when the drawings get recorded and made publicly available.
It's a race to the bottom. The clients don't understand what we do, and it seems like the real estate people push hard not to have surveys done until the sale is closed. And then you get these types of situations exposed. Someone else said it on the other thread: caveat emptor, and they were right.
Commercial real estate and ALTA surveys are better because they're generally being reviewed by some people in the know, or that are a bit more sophisticated with respect to real property. Until you get a marginal residential guy doing commercial ALTA's at half price of what it should be and thinking he's won the lottery.
In the Michigan survey, the surveyor should have first investigated the history of ownership (deeds) for the southwest quarter that occurred prior to the creation of the six listed tracts.?ÿ That must be known first or you don't know what it is that you are cutting into smaller pieces.?ÿ The plat should have shown the four corners of the southwest quarter which then allow locating the four corners of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter.?ÿ Finding the center corner is far more than a mathemagical game of drawing straight lines.?ÿ It is a search starting from the calculated location to find what has actually happened.?ÿ Depending on the year of the Special Instructions provided the GLO contractors to create the townships and sections, a different method may apply compared to the one you are most familiar with.?ÿ As this information was not provided on the plat we saw, we could only make guesses as to what is correct and what is not.
Once we are ready to tackle the six smaller pieces of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter, we again need to be familiar with the statutes in that State that are pertinent to deciding how to apportion errors in measurements or senior rights versus junior rights, if applicable.?ÿ This is part of why you read a great deal about button pushers who, by the very definition, know nothing but what the gadget screen tells them, even if it is terribly wrong.
Then we toss in parol evidence, physical evidence, experience in a given locale, etc. to assist in modifying raw data into the true solution, in our opinion. An example of local experience from today's work was a note on a survey in a town where the signing surveyor had probably made at least 100 surveys stating that all east to west distances should be multiplied by 1.009 to get from plat distance to actual distance.?ÿ Apparently, the north to south measurements were fine all over town.
The manner and order of parcel creation becomes less important as the owners occupy the tracts and time passes. I love a good puzzle, but peace and repose are far more important. If I can talk people into memorializing what they have done the ambiguity in the deeds can become a secondary conversation.?ÿ
This place rocks! ?????ÿ
?ÿ
more knowledge flowing here than any university, except the University of Hard Knocks I suppose.
?ÿ
?ÿ
@jitterboogie It really is. The situational examples are of particular interest to me. Great stuff.
What helped me a lot was the Westlaw index at the law library. It gives a sort of workflow for boundaries. How the boundaries were created (PLSS, metes and bounds, lot and block, of-type) doesn??t matter, the principles are the same.
Part I is deeds and descriptions, Part II is establishment. Every boundary follows a workflow. First creation by description and sometimes survey, then it becomes established over time by the conduct of the land owners. If the land owners don??t know where the boundary is located they may establish it by mutual agreement.
The basic law of boundaries is founded in agreement. When a person accepts a patent from the government it is implied that they agree to the boundaries as established by the government surveyors. If the government only protracted a boundary then they may establish it, if they wish they may employ an expert such as the county surveyor to assist them.
So from HC's post in the "Calamity" thread and the responses here, it seems like it really isn't much different than if a person in a metes and bounds state conveyed off "the west 10 feet of Lot 4" or "the south half of...".
Not practicing in such an area, when I saw all the perfectly dimensioned tracts, I would have assumed that the intention all along was to convey the proportionate amounts that would amount to those distances in a perfect world.?ÿ Even if it was based on a layperson not understanding that the perfect section didn't exist.?ÿ So I wondered if there was any leeway for the surveyor to determine that was the case when it seems obvious or if the first occurrence of a dimension throws the sectional part out the window.?ÿ Sounds like the dimensions seen in the post which prompted this discussion would need to be sorted in terms of who did what when (again - barring other items such as the drive or the tree/shrub line).
In the few instances I've worked on a section (in W. Kentucky), if everything hasn't already been overtaken by metes and bounds, I've used the aliquot calls until a specific called dimension is introduced.?ÿ Working through the process HC discussed in the other thread.?ÿ Interesting stuff, but not something I do on the daily.
And from MI-Other-Left's post, it seems, just like in metes and bounds states, some folks go through the trouble and others don't.
Thanks for all the insight.
@jon-payne it is different in that there are a multitude of ways to mathematically determine the west 10' of lot 10, and only one correct?ÿ mathematical solution to the SW1/4 or S1/2 of an aliqiout part. Where they are similar is that the same attention has to be paid to what has actually occurred on the ground.
This place rocks! ?????ÿ
?ÿ
more knowledge flowing here than any university, except the University of Hard Knocks I suppose.
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
That's 'cos the Professors here are alumni of long standing from that particularly fine University
?ÿ