> 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.
Dane,
I am sure you are correct, and that owners can work out what they want to work out. But if you have to set a boundary for an aliquot portion of a section, then the problem rears its ugly head. I am suggesting that, as scriveners, we should know the difference between an aliquot description and other formats and be clear on when to use which. The specific intent of what the landowner wanted should come across in the description. If it is ambiguous in nature, from my understanding, the courts will more than likely resolve it toward the favor of the grantee if the grant was authored by the grantor.
that were still federal interest lands at the time of the resurvey
Yes, there is some federal interest in all but the NENE and SWSW. The land is in private ownership except for the NWNW which is public land.
Those of you who believe Section all 7's have Gov't lots in Bil93's state are mistaken. The original Gov't patents can be as Bill93 indicates.
Based on the original plat and the acres in the patent if one were establishing the center of section for the first time a solution that gives everyone their proportionate area could well be in order instead of the cookie cutter method.
> Based on the original plat and the acres in the patent if one were establishing the center of section for the first time a solution that gives everyone their proportionate area could well be in order instead of the cookie cutter method.
Yes sir, and must correct myself. I meant to say consideration of the west tier acreages should show proportionality to the standard divisions, whether labled as lots or not.
1973 Manual:
6-16. It may be held generally that the entryman has located his lands in good faith if such care was used in determining his boundaries as might be expected by the exercise of ordinary intelligence under existing conditions. The relationship of the lands to the nearest corners existing at the time the lands were located is often defined by his fencing, culture, or other improvements. Lack of good faith is not necessarily chargeable if the entryman has not located himself according to a rigid application of the rules laid down for the restoration of lost corners where (1) complicated conditions involve a double set of corners, both of which may be regarded as authentic; (2) there are no existing corners in one or more directions for an existing distance; (3) existing marks are improperly related to an extraordinary degree; or (4) all evidences of the original survey which have been adopted by the entryman as a basis for his location have been lost before the resurvey is undertaken.
If they entryman expected his nominal 160 acre aliquot to be a half mile square and he didn't expect a substantial triangle to be lopped off then I would call that the exercise of ordinary intelligence particularly if the Plat shows it all nice and square.
But your mileage may vary.
I Take It The BLM Does Not Understand The Whole PLSS Concept
The East and West Quarter Corners exceed the expected 21' precision and therefore the Section is irregular.
Setting the center of section by intersecting straight lines is only to be applied to regular sections.
Paul in non PLSS PA
I Take It The BLM Does Not Understand The Whole PLSS Concept
Paul,
You are not close to understanding the PLSS!
The requirements of the 21' is for original surveys ONLY?
Keith
Look at What I said, the statement was qualified as typically. That means generally, usually.... I am well aware that lotting can occur ANYWHERE.
THANKS FOR YOUR PLAT AND PATENTS
It is important to note the patent states "the north FRACTIONAL half..." as opposed to just the "North half".
Adam, I get your point.
Correct, If The Section Is Originally Irregular
It is irregular forever.
Paul in non PLSS PA
Correct, If The Section Is Originally Irregular
If you don't know what you are taking about, why post about the PLSS?
Wanting a real answer, if there are any
Keith, were they any surveyors who ,knowingly, turned in subdivisions that were out of limits? What happened when they did? The sections that are out of lmits, are they that way because that is how they were monumented?
thanks for your help
Manual procedures
Hey guys, read those sections again with the premise in mind that if a retracement of an existing line is out more than the 21' , then lotting is necessary.
Manual procedures
That is.......RETRACING AN EXiSTING line!
I Take It The BLM Does Not Understand The Whole PLSS ConcepT
The requirement may now be 21 ft, but most of the PLSS was completed with various larger closure limits.
I Take It The BLM Does Not Understand The Whole PLSS ConcepT
I think it is 21 minutes of angle, not 21 feet.
Lotting Requirement?
Speed up my search please with a reference to the Section requiring lotting?
If so I believe the lotting applies only to that part of the Section that is irregular.
Paul in PA
Lotting Requirement?
Paul,
For instance, if a retracement of a range line found it to be more than 21 minutes from cardinal, then the new sections will be lotted up against the range line that is out of limits for regularity.
But this is all about completing original PLSS surveys, and has no bearing on any surveys that you do.
Get it?
Keith
