I am currently working on a 4 acre tract described as the E1/2S1/2S1/2SE1/4NE1/4 (330??660 a parcel adjacent to the 1/4 corner of the section) less the west 1 acre. The distance from the 1/4 corner to the NE corner of the section is 2656. The tracts as occupied to the north all seem to have 330 feet from north to south leaving the 16 feet on the last parcel and proportioning would move all these occupied tracts and an existing driveway to a tract to the west. It looks like the 1/4 corner was set at a fence line and cl of a road intersection. This fence then heads west at approximately N88W in which there is an existing driveway along the north side of the fence line and an easement which is described as being along the south boundary of the 4 acre tract (E-W center of section line) to the excepted 1 acre tract. There is also a ditch along the south side of this fence. A subdivision directly to the?ÿ south leaves the gap between the center of section and fence and makes?ÿno attempt to claim the occupied area. It makes no sense to me to cross this fence line to the center of section line.
I am planning to leave the extra 16 feet on the 4 acre tract and hold the fence line on the south. I can probably note this on the plat but I am having problems with the title since I am not using the center of section as the south boundary. I thought of using the?ÿ?ÿE1/2S1/2S1/2SE1/4NE1/4 as occupied but the fenced west boundary is 30 feet off because whoever marked the 1 acre tract measured 660 feet from the row fence on the road and not the centerline (section line). Maybe part of the?ÿE1/2S1/2S1/2SE1/4NE1/4.
Any Ideas?ÿ
I hope this makes sense
?ÿ
Another $99 special.
The kind of survey where the client's very first words are: ?ÿ"This one will be easy. ?ÿIt's only 4 acres."
You know you are in trouble when you start out with a 1/2 of a 1/2.
You say the 1/4 section corner was set at a road and fence intersection, but really it was only reset there.?ÿ
You are comparing the fence line to the center of section line, but how are you determining the center of section line??ÿ?ÿ
In sections where surveyors and land owners have given up searching for original corner positions (either by original evidence or perpetuated locations), the aliquot part corners cease to be unique identifiers. In other words one parcel's 1/4 corner may not be the same as another's 1/4 corner, and it's really just a matter of evaluating occupations and the nearby modern survey history, unless of course there is a federal interest adjoiner.?ÿ
Operations of law move boundaries between owners, but they do not move or multiply corners of the PLSS.
You'd think so, but I know of a case on the Sun River in Montana where the Court threw out original stone meander corners, ordered them destroyed and new corners put in.
To make matters worse the Court ordered $1 million in damages against the party that relied on the old stone corners.
Never say never when Lawyers ate involved
?ÿ
Half of 330 is 165 and half of that is 82.5. ?ÿHad an aliquot part description once that ideally would have been a nice rectangular 660 by 82.5. ?ÿIt was among several others of similar dimensions. ?ÿWe call them spaghetti farms.
Operations of law move boundaries between owners, but they do not move or multiply corners of the PLSS.
I think you misunderstood me. My point was that in sections with no federal interest the properties may be described by aliquot parts, but their corners are no longer the actual aliquot part corners, and the corner of one property will not control the corner of a nearby but not adjacent property.?ÿ
I would like to read that one. Do you have anything that would get me to the correct case??ÿ
Operations of law move boundaries between owners, but they do not move or multiply corners of the PLSS.
?ÿ
So are you saying a division of a section can't be moved. Wouldn't occupation be evidence of its original location regardless of the numbers.
Evidence of original location doesn't move any corners or lines, it perpetuates them..
Evidence of original location doesn't move any corners or lines, it perpetuates them..
The description was an expediency to get the deal done. Then the parties laid out and marked the boundaries on the ground signifying their intentions. A half of a forty could reasonably be interpreted as 660 feet or it could mean half the distance; if the parties implemented the words using a reasonable lay interpretation that will control over the technically correct interpretation. Now if the boundary was not physically established and the Land Surveyor is asked to survey it then use the technical interpretation, otherwise retrace what the correct parties mutually did. Simple, right? There is no problem with title.
Dave hit the nail on the head.?ÿ
We must differentiate between situations were it is appropriate to utilize the true aliquot part corners versus the established and occupied corners.
Sometimes both are needed.
Evidence of original location doesn't move any corners or lines, it perpetuates them..
The true aliquot part corners don't move, but the corner of a parcel described by aliquot parts can.
Completely agreed. I hammer on those finer point distinctions. They really do have a practical impact. When we let those 'little things' slide the courts assume they are really 'little things'. Much turmoil usually follows...
It is a basic canon of construction that ordinary words are given their ordinary meaning while technical words are given their technical meaning?ÿunless the facts and circumstances signify a different intention.
I am currently working on a 4 acre tract described as the E1/2S1/2S1/2SE1/4NE1/4 (330??660 a parcel adjacent to the 1/4 corner of the section) less the west 1 acre. The distance from the 1/4 corner to the NE corner of the section is 2656. The tracts as occupied to the north all seem to have 330 feet from north to south leaving the 16 feet on the last parcel and proportioning would move all these occupied tracts and an existing driveway to a tract to the west. It looks like the 1/4 corner was set at a fence line and cl of a road intersection. This fence then heads west at approximately N88W in which there is an existing driveway along the north side of the fence line and an easement which is described as being along the south boundary of the 4 acre tract (E-W center of section line) to the excepted 1 acre tract. There is also a ditch along the south side of this fence. A subdivision directly to the?ÿ south leaves the gap between the center of section and fence and makes?ÿno attempt to claim the occupied area. It makes no sense to me to cross this fence line to the center of section line.
I am planning to leave the extra 16 feet on the 4 acre tract and hold the fence line on the south. I can probably note this on the plat but I am having problems with the title since I am not using the center of section as the south boundary. I thought of using the?ÿ?ÿE1/2S1/2S1/2SE1/4NE1/4 as occupied but the fenced west boundary is 30 feet off because whoever marked the 1 acre tract measured 660 feet from the row fence on the road and not the centerline (section line). Maybe part of the?ÿE1/2S1/2S1/2SE1/4NE1/4.
Any Ideas?ÿ
I hope this makes sense
?ÿ
Is it bad, sad, or just the way it is when I read this and start drafting it up in my head????????