Rivers v Lozeau
> You are making assumptions. With regards to the W 1/4 corner, The BLM referenced a page in Moorhead's field book, not a plat. Do you know for a fact that a plat was ever made by Moorhead, signed and sealed, that referenced this "proven corner"? Or is it all based on something an unlicensed party chief wrote in a field book? It seems to me that a plausible explanation is that Moorhead's crew found something that they called the "proven" corner, and noted it. Moorhead reviewed their work, noted the multitude of discrepancies that we've noted, and rejected their "proven" corner, considered it "lost", and ordered them to set the monument at the mid-point.
>
> That seems to be consistent with my understanding of the record. How else can it explained that Moorhead ignored his own "proven" corner, unless it was a decision on his part, after looking at the big picture, that is lacked credibility?
You're right, the record of Moorhead's running of the N-S line of 15/16 was discovered in his field books, not a plat. My mistake. Does it diminish the value as evidence? Perhaps, perhaps not. Does Moorheads later use of the proportioned position offer greater evidence that his field note discovery of an original was mistaken identity? Perhaps, perhaps not.
Lots of assumptions can be made, both ways. Bottom line is Moorhead identified the location of the original in the same field book that he also identified the location of the midpoint between section corners. One can assume his later use of mathmatical midpoint was due to his undocumented rejection of evidence previously misidentified.
Or one could assume that Moorhead's field establishment of the mathmatical midpoint during the same survey as his identification of original location of the glo monument, led to a future mistaken use of the wrong control. Either by error or incompetence.
I can envision the field crews marked out the interior of Section 15 (and I'm guessing 16) and used the wrong monument (remember Moorhead identified both the original and the proportioned point at the same time). This use of the wrong monument may not have even been noticed during the later Moorhead work. Or if it was, remember that Moorhead did not record his work. He had every reason to believe his mistakes could stay within his office records as they were not public information.
Regardless, Moorhead's records contain information on the location of the original. Speculation on why he used the mathmatical midpoint instead of the original evidence can go both ways. It could have been intentional, inadvertant, or possibly incompetent.
Either way, Moorhead's lack of documentation regarding his reasoning for later ignorance of identified original evidence was damaging. His '65 survey could have cleared this up, but from what I gather, it was fairly spartan as to controlling evidence and methodology.
Rivers v Lozeau
Talk about assumptions!
Very little of what you post is public information.
It's not all bad except for the misapplication:
"[3-5] LAND SURVEYORS Although title attorneys and others who regularly work with them develop expertise as to land descriptions, the only professional authorized to locate land lines on the ground is a registered land surveyor [*5]. In fact, the definition of a leally sufficient real property description is one that can located on the ground by a surveyor. However, in absence of statute, a surveyor is not an official and has no authority to establish boundaries; like an attorney speaking on a legal question, he can only state or express his professional opinion as to surveying questions. In working for a client, a surveyor basically performs two distinctly different roles or functions:
First, the surveyor can, in the first instance, lay out or establish boundary lines within an original division of a tract of land which has theretofore existed as one unit or parcel. In performing this function, he is known as the "original surveyor" and when his survey results in a property description used by the owner to transfer title to property [*6] that survey has a certain special authority in that the monuments set by the original surveyor on the ground control over discrepancies within the total parcel description and, more importantly, control over all subsequent surveys attempting to locate the same line."
Rivers v Lozeau
So you posted earlier that BLM accepted every other corner around Sec. 15 during their resurvey, right? So what does BLM gain by not accepting the Moorhead monument? What would have been BLM's motive?
There were compelling reasons that there was information that a "proven corner" existed (obliterated) and BLM reestablished the position of the "proven corner" based on Moorhead's own information. For whatever reason Moorhead's set monument was erroneous and that is why BLM presumably did not accept it.
BLM did not subdivide Sec. 15, so did they have any knowledge how their reestablishment affected the interior corners?
OK, say that BLM was not involved at all and take out any of the suppositions regarding the 1/4 corner, what is wrong with the River's case? If the 1/4 corner was "the" issue, the case would have discussed it, but it didn't. All in all, I think that the case is ok based on the particular facts discussed in it.
I hadn't read that for awhile. I think I now recognize the source (textbook) though. Dang, and I had thought the judges had came up with that.
Dave & Leon
Yep, that is out of Clark, chapter 14, with proper authority, and I don't believe anyone would dispute it. The problem I have (as stated earlier) was where the judges came up with this, apparently on their own:
"The quarter-quarter section corners are placed on the line connecting the section and quarter-section corners, and midway between them. Although theoretically conceived and invisible, these lines are not merely theoretical concepts but are real lines, actually run and marked on the ground with terminal points monumented by surveyors acting under the authority of the cadastral engineer of the Bureau of Land Management."
Which was substantial in their decision, and is in direct contradiction with the law and the BLM Manual.
Dave & Leon
That is the issue with the court opinion.
In fact the official plat (1837) does not even show protracted quarter lines in section 15 so the court's assertion that the lines were actually run on the ground by the GLO are not supported by any facts.
Basically due to the incompetence of River's attorneys.
Dave & Leon
I see what you mean.
Lozeau had a legitimate beef, he just directed it in the wrong direction. His land surveyor apparently uncritically accepting the "FD ALUM CORNER" didn't help matters either.
I think the lesson in this case is "what we do as land surveyors matters." Be careful out there.
Dave & Leon
I think that Lozeau simply did not have competent legal advice or competent expert surveyor advice.
Lozeau was screwed!
Rivers v Lozeau
> I think that Lozeau simply did not have competent legal advice or competent expert surveyor advice.
>
> Lozeau was screwed!
FYI
Lozeau won.
From the record decision:
"The case is reversed and remanded with instructions that the trial court enter a judgement in favor of the appellees Raymond S. Lozeau and wife, in accordance with the land description as controlled by the official U.S. government survey."
Rivers v Lozeau
> So you posted earlier that BLM accepted every other corner around Sec. 15 during their resurvey, right?...
I don't recall saying anything to that effect.
>
> There were compelling reasons that there was information that a "proven corner" existed (obliterated) and BLM reestablished the position of the "proven corner" based on Moorhead's own information. For whatever reason Moorhead's set monument was erroneous and that is why BLM presumably did not accept it.
>
> BLM did not subdivide Sec. 15, so did they have any knowledge how their reestablishment affected the interior corners?
The BLM's job was to retrace the footsteps of the original GLO surveyor, as was Moorheads. Both Moorhead and Holley have been the only ones who were tasked with determining the locations of the interior patented parcel. Were the BLM have been tasked to locate the boundaries of the interior patented 40 acres, they certainly would not have let the interior location control how they retraced the original footsteps of the interior.
However, they surely would have weighed whether the interior 40 acre parcel Moorhead location was relied on in good faith by the landowners. Regardless of how the BLM would have decided that issue would not affect their retracement of the exterior.
I have an opinion on whether a BLM retracement of the interior would or would not have recognized the 40 acre Moorhead location as an established right. However my opinion matters little and would be entirely speculative.
>
> OK, say that BLM was not involved at all and take out any of the suppositions regarding the 1/4 corner, what is wrong with the River's case? If the 1/4 corner was "the" issue, the case would have discussed it, but it didn't. All in all, I think that the case is ok based on the particular facts discussed in it.
The case seems to center around Moorheads authority. If instead, the arguement was presented more as to the Rizzo's and their successor's reliance on the Moorhead location, perhaps the justices would have been swayed towards a different principle of establishment. Then again, perhaps not.
Rivers v Lozeau
Sorry, you are right!
Rivers v Lozeau
Rivers is the innocent party who was "screwed."
Geez talk about getting slammed despite acting in nothing but Good Faith.
Rivers v Lozeau
> Rivers is the innocent party who was "screwed."
>
> Geez talk about getting slammed despite acting in nothing but Good Faith.
A wiser man than I once wrote:
"When a landowner engages any professional, whether it be a doctor, lawyer, surveyor or whomever, to accomplish a task, the landowner is placing his/her entire confidence into the hands of the engaged individual".
Pretty good reason to carry E&O.
Even if you know you did the "correct" methodology.
Rivers v Lozeau
What really got screwed was the concept of the Public Land Survey System by Judges that have no idea of what they decided on.