I don't disagree with anything you said either. The manual does agree with the Dykes v. Arnold case. What Dykes v. Arnold and the Manual (much clearer in the 2009 manual) say is that if the section is already subdivided, you evaluate the previous survey for acceptance or rejection. Section 3-137 gives some guidelines. Every situation is different. Even if a subdivision was done incorrectly, you don't automatically reject it.
I think most of the disagreement is carried over from the time frame when if you didn't do the job exactly by the manual's black & white rules your work was not accepted. The sections that allowed for gray areas were ignored by most for several years.
Boundary surveying is more art than science.
Evelyn
Charles
Here's a question I haven't seen discussed for a while: Let's say there's a C 1/4 that was stubbed in at 40 chains North of the S 1/4. It's been accepted as the property corner and used to subdivide the SW 1/4 & SE 1/4. You're hired to survey the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 that's never been marked or fenced before. Do you use the stubbed C 1/4 that your client and their adjoiners have never relied on before?
Charles
Good question Steve.
If not, why not?
Do you use other 1/4 corners or section corners that do not border your client?
Keith
Evelyn
I would disagree a little.
Boundary surveying is more art than science.
I think this is the problem, too many surveyors think it is a science and not an art!
Too many rely on their measurement manual and not the survey manual!
Keith
Charles
> 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.
> 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
Robillard's right, but it is erroneous to say "according to Robillard". The BLM manual is the source of that particular definition, where it actually states what the "legal center of section" is. That is the term they chose to use, not Robillard. So because BLM went out of their way to actually state that the point of intersection of the lines run between established quarter corners is the legal center of the section (regardless of where it may have originally been marked or relied on), there will always be the nonsense of multiple corners...but courtesy of the BLM definition, rest assured there can only be one legal center of section.
butch
Are you serious?
Did Robillard explain it the way you have or is this your definition of the legal center 1/4 sec. cor.
Do you also use chains in all your survey work as the law says to?
Do we simply disregard all retracement/resurvey procedures since the Manual states (in the original survey Chapter) that the intersection is the legal center quarter corner?
Is the retracement/resurveyor not allowed to consider other evidence of the center quarter corner if it is not at the exact intersection point.
Wow!
Keith
Evelyn
Keith,
I thought that was what I said, or at least what I meant to say. Boundary surveying is an "art" as in searching, evaluating,reasoning, and explaining one's professional decisions; not a "science" as in just measurements. I once heard a speaker define the "art" of surveying as drawing maps. Needless to say, I was a bit concerned.
Evelyn
I will qualify my answer by making the assumption that the section has been completely patented. Therefore I say; Chptr 3 is a guide. If there exists local control then Chpt 5. However if there is harmonious reliance on the local control then that should/could carry the most weight. Even if the math is in error; if the previous local control was established using proper procedure then I can't see not using it.
If not, why not?
I'm not saying I wouldn't use it, I probably would, but I can think of reasons not to also. For one thing, when the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 was cut out of the section, if they thought about it at all, they would likely have meant to cut it out per manual instructions, whenever anybody got around to marking it. If the C 1/4 was placed for the purpose of marking boundaries other than the subject parcel (especially if it was placed after the grant of the subject parcel) how is the client obligated to honor it?
Let's say the original section and quarter corners around the section's perimeter would result in a much larger NW 1/4 by intersecting the 1/4 lines than the NW 1/4 that results from using the stubbed C 1/4. Would your client have any valid reason to protest your use of the stubbed C 1/4 rather than the procedure that was envisioned when his parcel was created? I don't mean that you should pick the solution that favors your client at all, it's just that when the client finds out that the Chapter 3 method would have benefited him, I know what his lawyer is going to argue.
Not trying to start an argument, just discussing something that pops into my mind where non-original monuments are concerned.
Peter and others
There are a few Feds who will only read Chapter 3 for their guidelines in subdividing the section where there is mixed ownership of the lands, but the huge majority of Feds will use all of the Manual when subdividing the section that has private and public ownership. Chapter 3 provisions for the original survey of the subdivision of sections is exactly that...original surveys.
Well..... I offer for your enjoyment this link to t44n r71w 6th P.M., a recent BLM resurvey.
http://www.wy.blm.gov/cadastral/countyplats/campbell/t44nr71w.pdf
There are all kinds of interior section breakdowns preformed prior to the resurvey. Unless it's just a math coincidence no interior corners will conform to this BLM resurvey. All the new breakdown is 1/4 to 1/4 then splits and prorates. If we are going to say that the first entryman cutting up the section created interior corners that should be held then shouldn't a new BLM plat conform also. The property is almost all fee surface and the minerals are mixed. This means that it is critical that all estates in the land conform to the same geometry. A 1/16 corner should be the same for the BLM as the private holding. If the manual intends for the first entryman to create the interior then it is official no matter if private or public. Or maybe not?
I would differ on that interpretation
The 2009 Manual 3-137,
2nd paragraph "In marking the corners of subdivision-of-section, the surveyor shall identify the section boundaries, rund and mark the section center lines, and fix the legal center of the section in common, in order to determine the boundaries of the affected quarter-sections."
4th paragraph "The protracted position of the legal subdivision corner on the survey plat is merely the first step in fixing the position of a corner. The corner position is fixed by the running and marking of the lines." So the legal center-quarter corner is the intersection until it is set or "fixed". That fixed position is now the legal center quarter corner not the intersection point.
Evelyn
butch
> Are you serious?
>
> Did Robillard explain it the way you have or is this your definition of the legal center 1/4 sec. cor.
I am quite serious, and no, this definition is the BLM's. You should know this, but I will assist you: read 3-87 (1973). For some unfathomable reason, you guys chose to use the term legal center of section, instead of just center of section. It is the only time any corner in the manual is referred to as "legal" (except for legal centers of quarter-sections, yet another great idea). Far be it for a court to fix that definition for you. Robillard knows this as an accomplished attorney.
> Do we simply disregard all retracement/resurvey procedures since the Manual states (in the original survey Chapter) that the intersection is the legal center quarter corner?
>
> Is the retracement/resurveyor not allowed to consider other evidence of the center quarter corner if it is not at the exact intersection point.
>
> Wow!
>
> Keith
Wow indeed. I simply defended Robillard's stance on what constitutes a legal center of section corner by virtue of the BLM having the grand idea of stating what exactly a legal center of section is. Stop jumping to nonsensical conclusions that are outside the realm of the discussion at hand.
I would differ on that interpretation
clearly i should get around to the 2009 manual sometime...
butch
"...nonsensical conclusions. . ."
yes, I have seen it all.
Keith
Charles
This is something that a snap judgement is not warranted. All the evidence pertaing to what has previously transpired in the section being worked in would need to be evaluated before making any hurried decisions.
Manual are updated by court and IBLA decisions
Butch,
Don't feel bad, I'm just getting through the new manual. This section was pointed out to me when I had to decide whether to accept some interior section corners that were set from a proportioned 1/4 corner that was found over 40 years after the interior corners were set. I used the factors in the second to last paragraph and accepted the interior corners. When the 1973 manual was written we were not doing resurveys of resurveys of resurveys. So these issues were only vaguely address in the 1973 manual. The 2009 manual, I think does a much better job.
There is also a new IBLA decision "Rudy Hillstrom" decided March 16, 2011. There were original 1/16 corners set. Later a stone (original corner was a post) was used and recognized by many people as a sixteenth corner. The BLM's decision to not use the stone was upheld because the sixteenth had been set by the original surveyor and the stone could not be related back to the original 1/16th.
Evelyn
If not, why not?
Steve,
You have valid arguments and I certainly do not have the answers and it seems like an aliquot part some distance away from the c 1/4 would not be controlled by it, but if you do the subdivision of sections by the book, so to speak and not just Chapter 3, you would need the C 1/4 cor. for control.
Keith
Keith
You sure would, and maybe you consider this blasphemy, but is the C 1/4 for the South 1/2 of the Section necessarily the C 1/4 for the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4?
Evelyn
I am with you on this and maybe my post did not come through right.
I absolutely agree that land surveying is more of an art then science and I see the problems from those who only see the mathematics of surveying.
Keith
