> In Oklahoma there is statutory right of way along all section lines. The width varies by the tribal treaty and/or federal statute effective in the particular area, but in this case it is 33 feet each side of the section line. This is the highway between the original state capital, Guthrie, and the county seat of the adjoining county, Kingfisher. So it's likely that the route was in common use very early on.
One more question. Was it the practice at the time the highway was reconstructed in the widened right-of-way for the *counties* to acquire the right-of-way for the highway? Could you be looking at a county right-of-way take that the Highway Department engineered a road within, but not necessarily on the same alignment?
> ... Was it the practice at the time the highway was reconstructed in the widened right-of-way for the *counties* to acquire the right-of-way for the highway?
Right of way deeds conveyed to the state. Even today most of these outlying counties have very little wherewithal when it comes to these matters.
> Right of way deeds conveyed to the state. Even today most of these outlying counties have very little wherewithal when it comes to these matters.
Okay, so ruling out some County Engineer with his own ideas of how to acquire right-of-way, how did highway designs typically handle the small PI's at 1/4 corners? Did the plans show a PI or did the highway engineers run the centerline from nominal section corner to nominal section corner? These questions may be drifting quite wide of the narrow question you originally asked, but I'm interested to know what accounts for the odd distances in the right-of-way deed since they sound exact and purposeful.
> Just how far do you go to interpret the intentions of the parties? The law says you take the "four corners of the deed". Common sense says nobody makes a variable width right of way in BF, Oklahoma.
I don't have any good advice as I don't do Public Land System. I just want to applaud you for the above portion of you thread. It is always good to see people recognize that law and common sense are sometimes two very different (sometimes even unrelated) prospects.
Oklahoma Highway Dept's Infinite Wisdom with R/W
Here's a good example of at least one aspect of our State Highway system:
You'll notice the CRL (Construction Reference Line) is NOT centered on the section line. As per the plans, the RW appears to be dimensioned from the CRL. This should be sufficient evidence to locate the R/W....ha.
One of the biggest problems is that there are literally thousands of miles of highways that occupy more than statutory RW (if they are on a section line) without any documentation other than a set of 1930 plans.
When I was with ODOT we ran into this time and time again. A little research provided some good insight. During the pre-war time period additional RW was purchased by the State. The State felt as though they were a superior entity to the county, therefore no documents were filed at the county level. One old timer explained that there was an argument about filing fees. The State didn't feel obliged to pay the county's filing fees.
All of these documents used to be on record in the RW division at ODOT. As time progressed the size of the sequestered files was enormous. They wound up in basements, boxes, dumpsters and a "black-hole" repository named "Hill Street". Most of these records have been destroyed. The only RW Parcel Exhibits (they do exist) I have seen have been in the property owner's abstracts.
Although that is not the biggest problem. The print above shows the RW definitely being offset from the section line. The concrete monoliths marking the RW (and the fences) in this particular location are centered on the section line. I'm assuming the RW docs were prepared assuming (erroneously) that the centerline of the highway was the section line. I think this happened more often than not.
In 1993 we had a big meeting with the RW division and ODOT's General Counsel concerning how to "handle" gross errors in deed and occupation. What we came up with (and I'm not saying I agreed with it, or even liked it for that matter) was to consider all marked (monoliths or established fences) RW as "Occupied Right-of-Way" available for use by the State Highway System. If new RW 'takes' are required, they would encompass these areas.
Basically the State took the posture that everything they had under fence (which includes a litigiously important term: maintenance) belonged to them. If a property owner felt otherwise, let them pursue legal channels to prove it. While the State may be proven liable for damages (tort claim), they also enjoy what we call Sovereign Immunity down here.
Soooo basically there are thousands of miles of RW that have no recorded documentation. And while they may or may not be in a location that is either predictable or congruent with construction documents of record....they are where they are.
The State has "screwed-the-pooch" with their historic RW's and could probably care less.
Oklahoma Highway Dept's Infinite Wisdom with R/W
> Here's a good example of at least one aspect of our State Highway system:
>
>
>
>
> You'll notice the CRL (Construction Reference Line) is NOT centered on the section line. As per the plans, the RW appears to be dimensioned from the CRL. This should be sufficient evidence to locate the R/W....ha.
>
> One of the biggest problems is that there are literally thousands of miles of highways that occupy more than statutory RW (if they are on a section line) without any documentation other than a set of 1930 plans.
>
> Although that is not the biggest problem. The print above shows the RW definitely being offset from the section line. The concrete monoliths marking the RW (and the fences) in this particular location are centered on the section line. I'm assuming the RW docs were prepared assuming (erroneously) that the centerline of the highway was the section line. I think this happened more often than not.
So, it sounds as if "section line" as used by the Oklahoma Highway Department had a technical meaning other than "section line" as used by land surveyors. That should only take about three pages to explain in the report.
An "esprit de corps"...
exists as a cancer at some State agencies that employ "surveyors" which basically places them at a lofty position of "government surveyor". I hope I live long enough to see some of these idiots with their fanny in the Maytag. It's only a matter of time.
[sarcasm]You see, they don't have to take property rights into consideration or any of that other crap...they can place a corner anywhere they think it might go.[/sarcasm]
An "esprit de corps"...
> exists as a cancer at some State agencies that employ "surveyors" which basically places them at a lofty position of "government surveyor".
As far as I can tell, the role of surveyor at the Texas Highway Department (when it existed) was Engineering Technician I operating under Engineers who had gone to Texas Agricultural & Mechanical College (when it existed). The whole point of the exercise in some districts was just to get a piece of paper so you could build a highway on someone's land, right? And once the highway was built, everyone *knows* where it is, so what's the diff? If any sort of mistake surfaces, we can just send a survey crew out to *fix* things. I mean, the whole point of describing the right-of-way was just so that we know how much we have to mow, eh? :>
Let me see if I understand:
(1) You have a road that was laid out in the 30's that "generally" (1' +/-) follows the section line.
(2) The right of way was laid out by meets and bounds and referances the section line in the description.
In the 30's , how good was the surveying? How many times has the road been repaved since the 30's? How many roads have you surveyed in the that ran EXACTLY down the EXACT centerline of the deeded right of way? Or did you just "assume" that?
I would honor the deeded right of way. The centerline of the road is an assumption. (Did you "eyeball" it or did you measure the width and divide by 2 at each survey point? Or did you shoot center of striping?)
In Mississippi we have a real problem with Yazoo clay, so I have NEVER seen a road that runs precisely down the centerline of its right of way. Perhaps you do not have problems like that, but I also know construction crews and have tried myself to run an asphalt machine many years ago. If that pavement is EXACTLY centered up you have hit an anomoly.
Go by the deed. The road location is fairly irrelevant to the right of way loction. Legal description rules in this case.
> Let me see if I understand:
I have recovered the centerline and the section line to my satisfaction. There is no question that they are distinct and different, although they are very close together. The record is very much like the example Paden Cash has posted.
The right of way lines are fenced, but to all intents and purposes are unmonumented.
I have to decide whether to honor a variable width right of way that is obliqeuly but perfectly described in a deed from the property owner to the state, or to honor the 50 foot right of way shown on a map made by the state. The difference is small, but not insignificant. The fences could be said to match either solution.
:good: Have many of the same situations here. State missed section line by 0.4, 0.8, 1.2 whatever for no design based reason I could fathom.
My predecessor claims it only happened when the public entity couldn't get an LS to the site prior to prelim survey, but experience makes me a little doubtful that this was always the case.
He said the prelim crew surveyed the proposed alignment, setting PI's near the section corner cause they never dug 'em, and later an actual LS compared the alingment to the land lines so they could be shown on plans and the deeds could be prep'd.
Steve
> The deeds are based on the plans! I would almost quess that they mention the exact stationing shown on them, or the ones I have seen that old did.
>
> But! What do the adjoining land owners descriptions read? I bet they dont say "less highway right of way"!!!
>
> :-O
Not always, and Not in Texas. There are typically a myriad of different plans out there and one was for the taking and one for grading, etc.
The "four corners of the deed" is well and fine. It is some engineering technician's attempt to write the intent of the transfer. But if I took every right-of-way deed I have found word-for-word, I would have many roadways not inside their right of way. I have seen where the original draftsman protracted in his section corners, and made that protracted point their point of beginning for a lot of descriptions. I have seen where, if I didn't use the existing road and some right-of-way monuments on the ground the right of way would have been 50 or 75 feet away. (conversely, I have seen ties to original section corners used to find the previously declared "lost" section corner stones.)
In my opinion, you have to try to put the intent together with all of the pieces of evidence, including the existing road. If you can reproduce the descriptions and the road is in the right of way, and especially if you can match some of the existing monuments, I think you are in good.
I tend to err on the side of the adjoiner if it is a hard call, and the "error" does not affect the traveled way. Several reasons I have for doing this; include that Often times/usually the courts will favor against the author of the deed. In the case of a right-of-way the highway department usually authors the deed. Second, the purpose of the purchase is to provide transportation for the general public. If this purpose is satisfied and the state doesn't "need" the property for the intended purpose, it should be enjoyed by the adjoiner while the highway system still is operable. (Note, I mean that only in situations where the conclusion is ambiguous. I also disagree with the State wasting public money to purchase land that it doesn't hold interest in. That would also be unethical and poor stewardship of the public's money).
If you have deeds that changes the width in different areas, I would try to pay attention what and why they may have done that; and does it match with the area they compensated the adjoiner for? (You probably already do that, but just throwing in my thoughts).
> He said the prelim crew surveyed the proposed alignment, setting PI's near the section corner cause they never dug 'em, and later an actual LS compared the alingment to the land lines so they could be shown on plans and the deeds could be prep'd.
I would guess, and this is only a guess, that the alignment was established on the first pass, holding the easily found section monuments. Later a more thorough recovery or a restablishment of the "lost" corners was made, but the alignment wasn't updated, as the design was by then well advanced. But that's just a guess.