I have a friend that was raked over the coals in court
Evelyn,
Your statement, A surveyor's survey is really only as good as his/her ability to persuade other to accept it. is very true and I know that BLM lost some cases in local District Courts for some erroneous reasons and maybe we did not prove our point well enough? Obviously, erroneous reasons, in our opinion!
Sometimes we thought the little lady in tennis shoes was more convincing to the Judge than us.
Keith
Peter
>
> In the areas I have worked the land had passed from the US to private hands and Federal Subdivision rules don't apply... other than for determining the methods of that original survey.
> The manual in effect at the time of the Patent is all I really care about.
Not so. While it is true that one does not look to federal laws but to state laws governing boundaries, CA and many other states have codified that the BLM Manual is to be used as the guide when surveying PLSS lands, particularly with respect to the restoration of corners and the subdivision of sections. I'll see if I can find the particular code in CA and post it.
I've got a few comments on all of this thread in general.
First, I would say that trumping all the manuals in a retracement, is the original notes. If they didn't "follow the manual" that was in place at the time of their survey, you still need to look for original monuments and how they laid them out.
Also, you need to look at court cases that reflect the survey you are conducting.
In a section breakdown, you need to, in my opinion, look at previous breakdowns and what was there at the time of the breakdown. You need to look at Dykes vs. Arnold for the precise situations that were present in that case. If I remember that case correctly, they accepted a center of section that was in place for the boundaries that were laid out. They found the property corners fit a particular center-of-section monument that was not at the true intersection of lines. And those property corners were tied to the center of section. If the deeds and/or survey for the properties had preceeded the setting of the center-of-section, the "true" center (intersection of lines) of section location may have prevailed. In fact, if I remember the case correctly they referenced some earlier cases where a center of section monument that was not at the intersection of quarter-corners was rejected. The earlier cases need to be looked at if you are contemplating a center of section that meets those circumstances.
Lastly, the manual(s) are somewhat of a "guide". If I am doing a "virgin" section breakdown in Colorado, I am going to do it by the current manual, because Colorado State Law says to. but I have never done a "virgin" section breakdown. (I know many of you have and I'm not saying they aren't done). I have almost always retraced older "breakdowns".
Just some food for thought.
Tom
Tom
Very good post, with an exception, ". . . the "true" center (intersection of lines) of section location may have prevailed."!
That statement is the problem with the rationale of those who simply cannot get out of Chapter 3 for subdividing the section. It is often said and I guess believed, that the "true" center 1/4 corner is always at the "true" intersection.
That is the bogus procedure that is being taught by some of the more esteemed speakers and if it were actually true....we could never actually find that "true" intersection, as there would and probably is, those surveyors who measure with a micrometer and will never agree to a previous corner monument.
My thought anyway.
Keith
The restated questions
These are clearer, Keith. I'll take the liberty of numbering them.
> >
> 1. When you subdivide a section, do you go with the guidelines in Chapter 3 only?
>
> 2. Or, if there is other evidence of the subdivision corners, do you then go with the guidelines in the resurvey portions of the Manual?
>
> 3. Or do you have your own guidelines?
>
> Keith
1. Only if there is no other evidence of the section ever having been subdivided, and only after I've found and verified or appropriately re-established the exterior corners. So, I guess strictly speaking, no, I don't because I have already used the principles from the resurvey chapters in doing the other work prior to resorting to Chapter 3.
2. Yes. If there is evidence of the subdivision corners prior to my arrival, Chapter 3 is irrelevant.
3. Make it up as I go along? I suppose some do. I adhere to principles and standards which are published or otherwise well known (otherwise they aren't "standards"). Even local standards are just variants of published standards.
Excellent!
and thanks for numbering the questions....I should have done that?
Keith
I have a friend that was raked over the coals in court
Apparently your friend was not able to clearly articulate the principles in the resurvey chapters and to make the basic point that Chapter 3 pertains to original surveys and not to resurveys. Either that or the other surveyor testified later and your friend had no opportunity to answer that erroneous testimony.
I am curious clearcut; explain the "federal methods"?
My first task was to determine the origin of the eighty acre parcels. Once I traced them back and found they were patented through the GLO, I then used federal methods.
Keith
I have a friend that was raked over the coals in court
> Sometimes we thought the little lady in tennis shoes was more convincing to the Judge than us.
If these things could always be settled formumaically with reference to some government issued book we wouldn't need judges, would we?
A few comments on your comments: "First, I would say that trumping all the manuals in a retracement, is the original notes. If they didn't "follow the manual" that was in place at the time of their survey, you still need to look for original monuments and how they laid them out."
Actually the manuals say you use the corners as set, not where they should have been set. So essentially, what you said, the original notes (and Plat) trumps the manual procedures is what the manuals say. The subdivision of sections part is for the FIRST time a section is subdivided.
Evelyn
Sorry Keith, I didn't elaborate on that as per your original question.
In this case, I used Ch 3 only. However it took some footwork to make that decision. One of the eighties had no previous delineation or reliance on anything other than where it abutted the section lines.
The other eighty was fenced. Two sides lie on section lines, and two were interior to the section (SE 1/2, SE 1/4 of the section).
Conversation with the landowner revealed he had built the fence and relied upon blazed lines along those lines. These blazed lines led to his northwest corner which was monumented with an unmarked IP.
Further research turned out that the adjoining timber company had blazed the lines and set the IP at the NW corner of the subject property for timber cutting purposes back into the 1960's. The IP was what is commonly termed a "cutting boundary monument". I determined that it had been established at almost exactly due west 20 chs from the E 1/4 cor. The landowner was aware that the lines and CBM were likely not the true lines due to there not being any record of the IP or any interior survey at the county, but chose to fence along them as he didn't want to pay for the cost of the survey at that time.
Upon resurveying the section exterior and calculating where the interior monuments would be, I found the CBM and blazed lines of the subject parcel were off by a considerable amount. The landowner was agreeable that the calculated positions were the true intended partition lines per the original patents and will move his fence.
This was an interesting problem involving timber cutting boundaries as opposed to ownership of the underlying parcel. As all parties were aware of the limited nature of the cutting boundary markings, no claim was made to hold that line upon determination of the true location.
While there could have been made an arguement that the CBM was relied upon as the property boundary, both owners understood that the true nature of the blazes and CBM were for approximation of the boundary for timber cutting purposes only.
Had the owner not understood the meaning of those items, this would have been a more interesting decision.
Tom
Keith.....I think this is semantics. I did put the word "true" in quotations as I didn't mean the micrometer center-of-intersections position (necessarily). My primary point is that many use Dykes vs. Arnold to serve their own cookie-cutter solution to every monument they find that is in the general vicinity of the quarter-section corner. It is not a cookie-cutter solution that always the mathematics prevail any more than any fence post or piece of steel in the ground prevails. You may find a piece of steel that does not match the local control and/or the math as to where it should fall. In my opinion, the surveyor needs to consider the history of the evidence, the actual math, parol evidence and other factors to come up with a solution. I strongly urge every surveyor to not accept the first marker they trip over as the controlling corner. Who knows....a "two-bit rebar" 10 feet away may be the legal acceptable corner; or the mathematical position may have a stronger "pedigree" in some particular cases.
Thanks clearcut
Thanks for your explanation and I am assuming whenever the term "federal methods" is used, it means Chapter 3 subdivision rules for original surveys?
Keith
Tom
Excellent post!
It may be semantics, but when I read of those who should know better, about the "true" center 1/4 corner; I think they fully intend to say the mathematical intersection at the exact intersection.
If not, why express it in terms of "true"?
In actuality, the "true" position for the center 1/4 corner is determined after all the research, digging, analyzing the evidence on the ground, as you describe.
Keith
Evelyn
What is so tough about all of us believing what you stated: Actually the manuals say you use the corners as set, not where they should have been set. So essentially, what you said, the original notes (and Plat) trumps the manual procedures is what the manuals say. The subdivision of sections part is for the FIRST time a section is subdivided.
Just reread and reread again the Oregon case and see if one can't understand what you stated!
Thanks,
Keith
> Actually the manuals say you use the corners as set, not where they should have been set. So essentially, what you said, the original notes (and Plat) trumps the manual procedures is what the manuals say. The subdivision of sections part is for the FIRST time a section is subdivided.
>
> Evelyn
Evelyn,
Touchè. I am only pointing out that a retracing surveyor needs to find the original notes and not just say.....I am going by the manual. But I am sure you are correct that if they "go by the manual" they would need to find the original notes.
Also, I agree on the subdivision of sections part being for the first time a section is subdivided. I hope that doesn't contradict anything I said above. But I would also point out that a "first-time" surveyor that subdivided a section and their survey was relied on to place property corners, would probably prevail even if they staked it wrong and not according to the manual procedures. I believe that is what "Dykes vs. Arnold" is all about.
Regardless, I don't disagree with anything you said above.
thanks, Tom
Tom
Keith:
According to Robillard, at a seminar, the intersection of the N-S & E-W center lines is the legal center of the section, but is not necessarily the center as previously determined.
Thanks clearcut
Keith,"federal methods" was a poor choice of words on my part.
It often is not as simple as applying chapter 3 methods.
clearcut
That was the reason I was asking you on what you meant by the term "federal method"?
I am assuming when I read that, it means Chapter 3 original survey methods.
Otherwise, why call any procedure, "federal method"?
Keith
Charles
Yes, I know, I have heard that rationale and is what I call bogus!
He attempts to have it both ways, i. e., the "true" C 1/4 corner is at the exact intersection of the two centerlines, but there may be other existing "property corners" that control the private land and are not the C 1/4 cor.
This only leads to the absolute nonsense of having multiple corners; some legal, others property corners.
I don't think there are many who advocate multiple corners at other corners in the subdivision of sections, as one could use the same bogus rationale for any subd. corner.
Keith