Section 7

I would think if the owner of the southeast quarter laid out his north and west boundaries cardinal from the east and south quarter corners he would be using "ordinary intelligence" and bona fide rights would seem to support the northerly center of section.

The west half can use the other center if they wish particularly if the Section has entirely passed into private hands.

Yes, If Section 7 Is Fractional

Per SS 3-88 if Section 7 is fractional, the upper placement of the Center of Section is required.

The intent of the PLSS was to create as many normal Sections or parts of normal sections. The Manual also speaks of maximizing regular lots, only the upper placement of the Center of Section creates the "ideal" maximum of regular quarter quarter 40 acre lots. See SS 3-33.

In most cases if someone had occupied an eastern quarter or part thereof of Section 7, they would have occupied it as if were a regularly shaped quarter.

The lower placement of the Center of Section most likely puts the center more than the allowed distance off of a cardinal line extended from the East quarter corner. See SS 3-34 regarding "rectangular limits". The Section lines must not exceed 21' from cardinal to be considered regular. The Western part of Section 7 in almost all cases would be considered irregular.

As I read it the proper way to set the Center of Section 7 is to stub out from the East Quarter Corner 40 Chains on a meaned bearing of the North and South latitudinal lines of Section 7. That is the eastern half of the Section lines only. One should find the distances from the North and South Quarter corners to be proportional to that of the East lines placement of the East Quarter.

Paul in non PLSS PA

That is the exact situation that I described on the other thread.

Keith

Yes, If Section 7 Is Fractional

I don't think Section 7 is necessarily fractional but it is a closing Section.

Of course on the plat it would look all nice and square.

The correct answer to the question depends on several situations, the first being the state. Which state is this theoretical question to be applied to?

here is a Section 23. The monuments on the exterior represent found stones and remonumented positions of found stones from surveys preformed in the 30's and the 70's. The W1/4, NW corner and N1/4 were all removed by an open pit mine. In the late 70's a dispute over the w1/4 arose between two land, and more importantly mineral owners, and this is the result of the resolution of the dispute. The center 1/4 was monumented using the straight line method.

Later, in the 2000's a group was formed to stake state land and was given authority by the legislature. In one newspaper the reporter gushed about how these people were using the "latest technology" to stake the lines-GPS (handheld), and computer files showing the section lines (probably the GCDB and some other crap they found on-line). No one in the group was a surveyor. I got a call from a client in a panic saying something just didn't "look" right and could we come out and "check" things. Anyway, this is a drawing of the "line" these people posted (with big white signs on metal fence posts) along a portion of the south 1/2 of the section which is owned by the state.

Because the C1/4 was set by agreement between the two land and mineral owners in the north 1/2 of the section, I am holding it. If it was a "virgin" section a better solution may have been the midpoint between the east and west 1/4's.

Owners can agree on ownership, they have no authority, nor do you for agreeing on GLO location based on ownership or agreed lines, that requires other evidence.
jud

> If the W 1/2 and E 1/2 had been patented to private owners, never divided further, and someone wants you to divide one of the half-sections, which center do you use?>
> If one half (E or W) had been divided into quarters, is the other half required to use the same center?
>
> Is the answer the same if the westerly half is described as Gov't Lots instead of aliquot parts, assuming that they were protracted on a square section?
>
> What other cases arise?

I would think that if the west half and east half have passed into private ownership the private owners could decide how they want to subdivide their land . GLO BLM rules would not necessarily apply.
Having said that, I would probably hold with the northerly lines for the reasons posted elsewhere in the thread (maintaining the most regular breakdown possible).
DJJ

Yes, If Section 7 Is Fractional

Excellent breakdown of the numerous exceptions which could be argued using the Manual itself. Especially coming from a non-PLSS guy! There is one other argument that can be raised in this situation, which is an argument that applies to any jurisdiction, PLSS or not.

Here, you've got patents from the US for the East and West halves. The federal patents created the north-south center section line. They didn't create any other interior section line. Those lines are protracted boundaries which were never created by the patent conveyance. Any subsequent boundaries are created by individual landowners in accordance with state law, not federal law.

If a private landowner were to have sold the SE4 after receiving the patent for the E2, then the east-west boundary could very easily be intended to follow a cardinal direction. State law aliquot divisions are equal area rule, not federal (connect the quarters) rule. An equitable split of the SE4 would be a sliding line parallel with the south line which splits the area (that's state law). Of course, that puts a line not necessarily starting from the E4 either.

I know. It's a radical thought and will freak out most PLSS surveyors because of the "confusion" it causes by applying a PLSS term (SE4) to a section division. Possibly could. The real issue is, the surveyor isn't bound to dogmatically follow the PLSS chapter 3 rules, especially when dividing private land. When the surveyor discovers the oddity caused by the irregular displacement of the W4, that's when he should be contacting the owner, discussing the issue, and determining what technique to use. The owner can fix the boundary using any method they choose. It's their land, not the surveyors.

Once the owner's intent is clarified, the surveyor can then finish the survey, set the monuments where they're expected to be, and document the boundary location. Hopefully, the surveyor lives in a state where the perpetuation of survey evidence was deemed important enough by the surveyors to have created a depository for the survey.

The retracement of the line, once it's been established on the ground, however, is an entirely different matter. It's up to the retracing surveyor to recover the boundary where it was established.

JBS

In that case the owners could decide ownership lines, but ownership lines are often in conflict with the GLO and if they are, don't attempt to pull the GLO into compliance. We often uses long established occupations as being the best available evidence of the GLO positions but where there is large conflicts, correct the descriptions by using a metes and bounds description tied into known GLO locations. Many, especially those in the title and legal end, who don't understand it anyway hang onto aliquot parts and only setting it up to continue the conflict for those who follow when it would be easy to correct the written record and remove conflict and confusion with little effort on the surveyors part.
jud

> In that case the owners could decide ownership lines, but ownership lines are often in conflict with the GLO and if they are, don't attempt to pull the GLO into compliance. We often uses long established occupations as being the best available evidence of the GLO positions but where there is large conflicts, correct the descriptions by using a metes and bounds description tied into known GLO locations. Many, especially those in the title and legal end, who don't understand it anyway hang onto aliquot parts and only setting it up to continue the conflict for those who follow when it would be easy to correct the written record and remove conflict and confusion with little effort on the surveyors part.
> jud

Good point. While the owner may be able subdivide his land as he pleases,(subject to state and local laws/regulations) it would probably cause future confusion to use aliqout part descriptions. I'd either describe the nominal SE 1/4 for instance by meets and bounds or the east xx feet of the south xx feet of the east half of section xx or something similar.
DJJ

they have no authority, nor do you for agreeing on GLO location based on ownership

I'm not claiming any authority; just going with a settled lawsuit. I suppose I could dispute the court, the other surveyor and precedent established by the BLM in the area. But I'm not going to.

As far as a GLO location: the BLM is retracing the township that this Section is in; but since there is no Federal Estate in this area they will not be resurveying this Section.

Once the land passes into private ownership, the gov't instructions can only be used to indicate what should have been done if the aliquot part descriptions were used on deeds. Many times the deed was drafted by an attorney in the county seat who had no real idea what the surveyor and/or owner did on the ground. When this happens, the description was wrong when it was first placed in the record and cannot be regarded as having any control over the boundary location.

In retracing deeds today, the record description is not a controlling element, physical evidence of occupation and control is the controlling element.

A surveyor has not 'finished' the retracement until the record accurately reflects the actual location of the legal boundary.

The retracing surveyor has 'responsibility' to accurately report, but no authority over, the acts of the owners.

Without the surveyor's acceptance of the responsibility to detect and correct errors in the land records, we have no reliable land record system.

Richard Schaut

for your consideration

1. the plat does not show a typical section 7. A typical section 7 would have lots along the west side of the section.

2. Typically the government patent would be an aliqout part description and not the "east or west half of a section". Using the later description defeats the purpose of having an aliqout part system in the first place.

3. The contolling elements for the North/South East/ West centerlines would have been created by the original survey.

4. Once the land had been conveyed into private ownership, the owner is not bound to follow federal rules for further subdivisions.

5. Bona fide rights has nothing to do with "ordinary intelligence". Bona fide rights as to location is based upon a GOOD FAITH EFFORT to locate in relation to the ORIGINAL SURVEY. Finding a single original monument and going "West 2640'" may be enough to satisfy the requirement of a good faith effort.

In retracing deeds today, the record description is not a controlling element, physical evidence of occupation and control is the controlling element.
The written record with exceptions is the controlling element, especially in the original intent, location usually is withing accepted tolerances. Subdivisions and partition plats establish units of land that are fixed, ownership rights may shift about but the underlying plat does not. With planning and other land laws it often becomes a hardship to hold wandering claims over the original intent, platted and monumentented land divisions. Outside of the platted areas there seldom are large discrepancies between the record intent and the actual use, when substantial discrepancies are encountered then we need to put some effort into having the property owners correct the deed descriptions, but to write the documents that would do that we must locate the described tracts as described in the record, made additions to that record reflecting the conditions on the ground, we must continue the chain of title and history by adding to it, not starting over because of an agreement and forgetting what passed before.
jud

for your consideration

> 1. the plat does not show a typical section 7. A typical section 7 would have lots along the west side of the section.
>
> 2. Typically the government patent would be an aliqout part description and not the "east or west half of a section". Using the later description defeats the purpose of having an aliqout part system in the first place.
>
> 3. The contolling elements for the North/South East/ West centerlines would have been created by the original survey.
>
> 4. Once the land had been conveyed into private ownership, the owner is not bound to follow federal rules for further subdivisions.
>
> 5. Bona fide rights has nothing to do with "ordinary intelligence". Bona fide rights as to location is based upon a GOOD FAITH EFFORT to locate in relation to the ORIGINAL SURVEY. Finding a single original monument and going "West 2640'" may be enough to satisfy the requirement of a good faith effort.

Dane, good post. I have a couple of comments. item 1. While the sketch does not show the "lots" that would typically be on the westerly tier, wouldn't the "center" of section still be at an intersection of the lines? Aren't the lots typically protracted and the actual corners not set in the original survey?

Item 4: That might have to do with the state. I don't know about California, but in Colorado there is a law that says whenever a description uses the nomenclature of the Manual, the surveyor shall use the rules according to the manual to stake establish the parcel(s). (Not a quote, but paraphrased for this discussion.)

I imagine a lot of states have similar laws. I would say that of course the owner may divide his/her property as they desire, but they should watch out if they use aliquot/fractional descriptions. I would advise using a different description to more explicitly describe the subdivider's intent.

Just another comment or observation: taken literally, an aliquot description of a part of a section that is lotted, is not divided aliquotly. In other words, the south "1/4 corner", is not staked halfway between the section corners in Section 7 and, therefore if you think about it, the SE 1/4 of section 7 is not really the SE 1/4 of the section.

Actual language of statute language paraphrased above: "38-51-103(1) Whenever a professional land surveyor conducts a survey for the purpose of locating a parcel of land which is described in terms of the nomenclature of the public land survey system, such professional land surveyor shall proceed according to the applicable rules contained in the current "Manual of Instructions for the Survey of the Public Lands of the United States" published by the United States government printing office; except that all monumentation shall conform to section 38-51-104"

Will suggest that the acreages of the govt lots on the north tier will answer the question. If your subdivision shows a proportional harmony there, then that is how the GLO platted it.

If that flys in the face of occupation on the ground, then bonified rights is likely at issue. In the end what harmonizes with the actions of entrymen is prudent.

Bill, this is a recent breakdown of a similar section in T52N, R70W, 6th PM. Anyway, this is how the BLM divided the Section. 1989 date on the plat. I have not seen the BLM kink the centerline of a section in any of the thousands of resurvey sections that they have lotted during the extensive Power River Basin resurveys.

Nice plat Moe,showing a resurvey of lands that were still federal interest lands at the time of the resurvey.

Adam, my comment just had to do with the exhibit and not where the center 1/4 is. I think I made a mistake the original patent could have been for the east 1/2 of the section, but I believe that it would have been better if it were for the NE1/4 and the SE 1/4.

Adam your citation is for actions of the surveyor and not what is required of OWNERS.

Under state law there can be a difference between the state rules for something like "half" and the federal rules for the PLSS. The classic case in CA. Woods V Mandrilla.