Section Subdivision

it depends, right.

Per Wattles 7.24 (2) "Private lands - there are no rules establishing the position of the line between halves if the dividing line is not delineated."

But it sounds like they would be right, in certain situations.?ÿ

There's nothing crazy about that at all. As Bradl says - it depends. If the ownership is Federal, your statement "the North Half would be the same as the Northeast Quarter and the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter" is correct. If the ownership is private, each half must be equal in area, and without further explanation, the dividing line can be in an infinite number of locations, and comprised of a nearly number of courses, including lines, arcs, and non-mathematically defined segments, such as threads of streams, cliff faces, etc.

Posted by: Jim in AZ

There's nothing crazy about that at all. As Bradl says - it depends. If the ownership is Federal, your statement "the North Half would be the same as the Northeast Quarter and the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter" is correct. If the ownership is private, each half must be equal in area, and without further explanation, the dividing line can be in an infinite number of locations, and comprised of a nearly number of courses, including lines, arcs, and non-mathematically defined segments, such as threads of streams, cliff faces, etc.

There are a few states where that is permissible, but in most states a reference to an aliqout part is?ÿ a reference to the entire PLSS system, so unless there are improvements that disagree, or unwritten rights are involved, a private aliqout part is the same as a federal aliqout part.?ÿ It would be crazy if it this were not true, because as you say, the dividing line otherwise could be anywhere. All the aliqout parts were created simultaneously. They don't move. So unless there is specific state law to the contrary, or there is clear evidence of a different interpretation on the ground, the line is as it was created.?ÿ

I would not go so far as to say no Federal interest means half by area. The description by itself may be ambiguous, depending on State law. Regardless of the state it's a bad assumption. Get the evidence before you calculate a pin set...

I appreciate all replies.

Bradl-I believe that in Wattles 7.23 at the top of the page he is saying that basically everything in the USPLSS is what he is calling "public lands" therefore, I would interpret the division would be at midpoints.?ÿ

Jim in AZ-keeping in mind that we are talking about the USPLSS. If the equal area theory with respect to private ownership were to be held what would prevent one from making the NE1/4 of the NE1/4 exactly one fourth of the area of the NE1/4??ÿ

Again let's assume that there are no other property rights or occupation of any kind involved...

Thank you all again.

FWIW, I agree that it is a bit of an ambiguous description. If I were describing it it would be the NE1/4 of the NE1/4 AND the NW1/4 of the NE1/4 unless of course the area was intended to be half in which case there would be language to support this.

You can deal me out of doing a section breakdown that way, I've heard that theory many times.

If the description says: "THE NORTH HALF" then, absolutely, offset the north line until you get half the area. Unless an alternative can be shown. I've seen this a lot: the North 10 acres of Government lot 3, The south 2.5 acres of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4; it's still the same thing "area". If it's described as an aliquot portion, then, as @aliquot said do it by the book.?ÿ

I have seen Original Federal Patents that read:

"north half of the northeast quarter of Section..."

Nothing ambiguous about that.

Loyal

edit "north half OF"

So if the owner was the successor to an aliquot entryman, you would create a fight over (non-existent) strips? What if the deed was prepared by a seller who would gain an advantage by the area method? I would want to see a statute or appellate level case before accepting that method.?ÿ

When the parent tract(s) is described by aliquot parts, I regard 1/2 as shorthand for two contiguous 1/4s.?ÿ My convention is to not use 1/2 in aliquot descriptions to avoid ambiguity.?ÿ Even for the mineral lands, the law stipulates that a 20 acre placer claim described by aliquot parts should be composed of two contiguous 10-acre aliquot parts.?ÿ In the past, the minimum aliquot part recognized by the GLO for the rectangular PLSS was 40 acres.?ÿ For mineral lands the minimum aliquot part was 10 acres.

In Colorado, surveyors subdividing a section for the first time must comply with the following C.R.S. section.

38-51-103. Procedure for subdividing section. (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.

However, for non-aliquot parcels, the subdivision is by acreage.?ÿ I was asked to conduct some research for a 120 acre placer claim that was a metes-and-bounds parcel (a mineral survey was required because it was not described by aliquot parts).?ÿ The deeds divided the placer claim into the the eastern 1/2, the western 1/4 and the remainder.?ÿ The question I had to answer was the orientation of the two dividing lines.?ÿ The placer claim was east of a major mineralized fault with a strike of S 24?ø E.?ÿ Yep, you guessed it the two dividing lines both had courses of S 24?ø E.

I don't find ambiguity with that description.

The only reason I say it is a bit ambiguous is because it seems by the responses to this post there are differing opinions. Perhaps I chose the wrong word when I said it was ambiguous earlier. As you can see by my first post I was surprised at the area interpretation of the description when used in the USPLSS.

It's in the PLSS, it's a description that is just like descriptions in patents. The N1/2 being 80 acres, the S1/2 being 80 acres.?ÿ