I have read in several places that the description "N 1/2 of Section 12" is essentially equivalent to "NW Quarter of Section 12 and NE Quarter of Section 12".?ÿ
Does this mean that the description "E 1/3 of N 1/2 of Section 12" is essentially equivalent to "E 2/3 of NE Quarter of Section 12"?
This is open range desert land which has no markers or recorded surveys (besides the 1856 and 1940 PLSS markers and surveys) that I can find.
Any and all suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
?ÿ
Once you start dividing into fractions other than 1/2s and quarters, and dividing 1/2s, any standardisation goes out the window. The beauty of Jefferson's system is that any interpretation of an aliqout part based on the BLM/ GLO plat will result in the same answer, so there is no conflict. But that only works when the section is divided into 1/2s and 1/4s, and the 1/2s aren't divided into anything except 1/4s.
Your understanding of the N1/2 is correct. This works becasue if you are using the official plat to divide the section into 1/2s,?ÿ you will get the same result whether you put the two 1/4s together, use the federal statute method, or do it by area.?ÿ
In a situation like yours it usually comes down to determining what the intention of the subdivider was, usually by the owners' actions shortly after the subdivision. If there is no evidence to help you with that, the next thing to research is whether there is a standard interpretation in your area, either by practice, statute, or judicial action.?ÿ
These are tricky and do depend on how the section was owned at the time of first aliquot description (in this case East one-third of north half).?ÿ In almost every section I encounter there is no such thing as a perfect one-half based on existing monuments.
I have read in several places that the description "N 1/2 of Section 12" is essentially equivalent to "NW Quarter of Section 12 and NE Quarter of Section 12".?ÿ
Does this mean that the description "E 1/3 of N 1/2 of Section 12" is essentially equivalent to "E 2/3 of NE Quarter of Section 12"?
This is open range desert land which has no markers or recorded surveys (besides the 1856 and 1940 PLSS markers and surveys) that I can find.
Any and all suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
?ÿ
Nah, I think it would be the E 1/2 of the NE 1/4 and the E 1/3 of the W 1/2 of the NE 1/4??ÿ Which seems convoluted.
Or actually, just my description is convoluted.?ÿ ?????ÿ
In the PLSS it is best to interpret descriptions in the context of the PLSS, in the absence of physical evidence of the intentions of the original parties to the description. Therefore the North half of the Section is all of the section north of the straight line between the east and west quarter section corners.
?ÿThe one-third allows for a couple of possibilities. One is a distance one-third of the way across the entire mile or the proportionate east 26.67 chains measured on the north and south lines of the northeast one-quarter of the Section.
Then you discover this is in Section 6.?ÿ AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH.
I haven't run into that one, some weird ones but not that. Run the north line of the section and divide by 1/3, run the east-west centerline and divide by 1/3, connect those two points. That's one solution. Figure out the area of the N1/2 and draw a north-south line that bounds the E1/3, that's another solution. What a North-South line is will be up for discussion. Try and figure out what the original survey was on, or use "true" geodetic or astronomic north.?ÿ
Whatever you do file on it and show your work, I doubt anyone will dispute your solution or how it's done if it wasn't done before.?ÿ
Of course, research what the adjoining deeds call out, go back to the patents and make sure this all is OK.
There could be a junior/senior issue where there is a senior call for the west 3520' of the N1/2.?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿThe one-third allows for a couple of possibilities. One is a distance one-third of the way across the entire mile or the proportionate east 26.67 chains measured on the north and south lines of the northeast one-quarter of the Section.
Another possibility is 1/3 by area with several possible methods of determining the bearing of the weat boundary.?ÿ
Or is there a fence or ditch that someone thought divided off about 1/3?
Thank you for the replies. The division of the N 1/2 into thirds was by probate to divide the land amongst three heirs. Without being able to read the original will, I believe the intention was an equal division of area. My equivalence of the E 2/3 of the NE Quarter would result in unequal thirds because the quarters are not equal. I suppose now it is not appropriate.
I think I still have two options:
1. Establish two lines bearing (near) perfectly N-S lines that make equal thirds in area, or
2. Divide the defining southern border of the N 1/2 (from the W Quarter to E Quarter) into equal thirds and then set the bearings on the N-S lines northward to equalize the areas of the three equal parts of the entire north 1/2.
Is one method used more than the other, or is there another suggestion?
Lemme see if I can remember this one correctly...it gave me fits.
Owner held deed for NE/4 of a section.?ÿ Owner had three heirs (sons).?ÿ Only one son lived locally; the other two resided out of state.?ÿ Prior to his demise the father deeded the 3 sons the following:
1.?ÿ The south 53 1/3 acres of the NE/4.
2.?ÿ The north 53 1/3 acres of the south 106 2/3 acres of the NE/4.
3.?ÿ The NE/4 less the south 106 2/3 acres.
These conveyances were simultaneous and occurred about three years before the father passed.?ÿ The one son that lived locally was the grantee of the third description above.?ÿ About the time of the conveyance he placed an east-west fence on the south side of his portion that most nearly fit the north line of the south 106 2/3 acres.
I was hired to perform a boundary with the blessing of all parties.?ÿ Although the NE/4 was reported by the GLO in 1870 to contain "160 acres more or less" it in fact contained almost 165 acres.?ÿ This provided the north tract with around 58 acres and some change.?ÿ The two out-of-state sons lawyered up and filed suit against the local brother contending the father had meant to divide his quarter section equally among the three sons.
At first I thought the owner of the north tract had some insight in the actual acreage and this might have had something to do with his building a fence where he did.?ÿ After some lengthy discussions with him I realized this was not the case.?ÿ He had merely measured 1760' north from the only reliable fence at the south line of the NE/4.?ÿ The 'overage' was unknown to him at the time.
I will be the first to admit I believe the father meant to divide the quarter into three equal parts.?ÿ But the simple fact is:?ÿ He did not.?ÿ I placed the boundaries on the ground as they were described in deeds because there were no ambiguities in the descriptions.
This mess took over two years to settle.?ÿ We went through depositions and pre-trial conferences in chambers.?ÿ I remember one overly assertive attorney for the plaintiff had stated it was apparent to him "the father had meant to divide the land equally".?ÿ ?ÿThe judge asked him where he had purchased his crystal ball because he wanted one also.?ÿ The judge reiterated several times that the only instructions we have from the deceased grantor were the conveyances themselves.?ÿ?ÿ
The defense prevailed and retained his 58 acres.?ÿ The judge also commended me on my survey work.?ÿ I believe that is the only time that has ever happened in 50 years.?ÿ ?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
This description is a little different than what I am dealing with, but if I may ask, did you favor precisely E-W dividing lines and position them to create precise acreages (53 1/3) in the two southern parcels? If you did not, and simply measured northward on the east and west sides 880' and another 880' and it prevailed in the court proceedings, then I am thinking I can use my original thought of "2/3 of the NE Quarter" which would be much easier (and less costly) to lay down and still be less than a 1% difference in parcel sizes.
A farmer wanted to divide his 17 horses among his three sons. According to farmer the oldest son should get half of the horses, the middle son should get one third of the horses and the youngest son should get one ninth of the horses.
When their father died they were not able to divide the horses as the result was coming in fractions. As the sons were fighting on how to divide the horses a traveling mathematician came and heard their problem. He proposed a solution with which all the sons got their share in the property without harming any animal.
The mathematician put his own horse in the corral with the 17 horses the farmer left. He then took nine horses (half of 18) and gave them to the oldest son, six horses (one third of 18) and gave them to the middle son, two horses (one ninth of 18) and gave them to the youngest son.
The mathematician then got on his horse, the only one left in the corral, and rode away leaving three happy brothers.
@mathteacher almost sounds like the mathematician failed to collect a fee for services...
To see how Paul Drake handled billing and collection, see Perry Mason: The Case of the Lonely Heiress, season 1, episode 20. It's all worth watching, but the valuable part is in the first 10-15 minutes.
Gotta get this check to the bank before the ink dries.