In early versions of the instructions the north-south quarter section was to be run parallel with the east section line and 40 chains from it. Thus, theoretically, the quarter-quarter line would also be parallel with the east section line and 20 chains from it. ?ÿErrors in east-west measure would fall in the west half of the section.
Today we must live in the real world.
I agree that most of the time 1/2 of the total area is not the proper interpretation of the description. But in private land not always. Most common exception could be shares in the family farm.
There is a case in CA (Wood v Mandrilla) that many would argue means that half is half by area in CA.?ÿ I argue that since it was not a standard section, held as the SW 1/4 (to be technically correct, the aliquot E 1/2 of the SW 1/4 together with Govt Lots 3 & 4, but conveyed to the seller in this case as the SW 1/4), with the E 1/2 then being sold to the plaintiff, one needs to be careful extrapolating that ruling to apply to all privately held divisions in CA (or anywhere else).
Having worked for some time in many PLSS states, including some of those where respondents in this thread said the division is by area, I've always understood the presumption to be that if the division is a portion of a full regular section or of an aliquot division of a regular section, then 1/2 is half by aliquot division as directed by the GLO/BLM manuals, but that if you are retracing rather than creating, you need to consider other possibilities in case the surveyor who did the work to create the parcel was trained by engineers - then half is half by area.
I think they're probably the same people that when kids, and mom was cutting the last piece of birthday cake to split between brothers, was the one who would immediately scream "HIS HALF IS BIGGER!"
There is a case in CA (Wood v Mandrilla) that many would argue means that half is half by area in CA.?ÿ I argue that since it was not a standard section, held as the SW 1/4 (to be technically correct, the aliquot E 1/2 of the SW 1/4 together with Govt Lots 3 & 4, but conveyed to the seller in this case as the SW 1/4), with the E 1/2 then being sold to the plaintiff, one needs to be careful extrapolating that ruling to apply to all privately held divisions in CA (or anywhere else).
Having worked for some time in many PLSS states, including some of those where respondents in this thread said the division is by area, I've always understood the presumption to be that if the division is a portion of a full regular section or of an aliquot division of a regular section, then 1/2 is half by aliquot division as directed by the GLO/BLM manuals, but that if you are retracing rather than creating, you need to consider other possibilities in case the surveyor who did the work to create the parcel was trained by engineers - then half is half by area.
I think they're probably the same people that when kids, and mom was cutting the last piece of birthday cake to split between brothers, was the one who would immediately scream "HIS HALF IS BIGGER!"
Yeah, all bets are off when a lotted area is included in an aliqout part. In that case dividing it by area may be the most reasonable solution. You cant break down a parcel by the directions in the manual when the parcel wasn't aliqout to begin with.?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
"...I think they're probably the same people that when kids, and mom was cutting the last piece of birthday cake to split between brothers, was the one who would immediately scream "HIS HALF IS BIGGER!""
Or maybe they are the ones who had to deal with those kids...
Or maybe its two brothers whose father owned the NE/4 and the estate gave one half a part and the other half a part. Deeds were written without a survey for the N /2 and S/2 of the NE/4.?ÿ And they both say the intent was quantity. The difference is 2 acres (about 350-400 bushels of corn a year).?ÿ
Or maybe its two brothers whose father owned the NE/4 and the estate gave one half a part and the other half a part. Deeds were written without a survey for the N /2 and S/2 of the NE/4.?ÿ And they both say the intent was quantity. The difference is 2 acres (about 350-400 bushels of corn a year).?ÿ
What they say the intent was doesn't matter if the deed is unambiguous. They can't just say the intent was not what was called for in the deed.?ÿ
Anyway, if they both agree on the intent, it should be easy to move the line to where they think it should be. That way the owners 100 years from now aren't stuck with deeds that don't match the occupation.?ÿ
I just heard what I believe to be a crazy point of view today and I wanted to know if there is anyone else out there that agrees. This person inferred that the "...North Half of the Northeast Quarter" of a normal (interior) section means that once the section is broke into quarters one then would find the acreage of the Northeast Quarter and split it exactly in half (the acreage) making the division line parallel with the north line of the Northeast Quarter.
To me the North Half would be the same as the Northeast Quarter and the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter.
What say you?
This situation is specifically addressed in Brown's BC & LP, 7th Edition on page?ÿ 444, Section 13.5
"Principle 6. When a fraction of the whole is conveyed, such as the west half, it is presumed that the conveyance is based on area measurement unless stated otherwise.
This principle in not in harmony with the federal statutes that specify the method to be used for sectionalized land. ...."
I just heard what I believe to be a crazy point of view today and I wanted to know if there is anyone else out there that agrees. This person inferred that the "...North Half of the Northeast Quarter" of a normal (interior) section means that once the section is broke into quarters one then would find the acreage of the Northeast Quarter and split it exactly in half (the acreage) making the division line parallel with the north line of the Northeast Quarter.
To me the North Half would be the same as the Northeast Quarter and the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter.
What say you?
This situation is specifically addressed in Brown's BC & LP, 7th Edition on page?ÿ 444, Section 13.5
"Principle 6. When a fraction of the whole is conveyed, such as the west half, it is presumed that the conveyance is based on area measurement unless stated otherwise.
This principle in not in harmony with the federal statutes that specify the method to be used for sectionalized land. ...."
I don't have Brown in front of me, so I cant evaluate the context, but, calling for an aliqout part is,"stating otherwise". A call for an aliqout part is a call for the original survey, and the original survey created the aliqout part under the established federal rules. Its the same as a call for a lot and block is a call for the subdivision plat and all the applicable laws and rules of interpreting a subdivision plat.?ÿ
Brown is a good resource, but I certainly wouldn't look to him when it comes to PLSS questions.?ÿ
Nor can you always look to federal PLSS rules after land has passed into private ownership. As usual, it depends.....
I just heard what I believe to be a crazy point of view today and I wanted to know if there is anyone else out there that agrees. This person inferred that the "...North Half of the Northeast Quarter" of a normal (interior) section means that once the section is broke into quarters one then would find the acreage of the Northeast Quarter and split it exactly in half (the acreage) making the division line parallel with the north line of the Northeast Quarter.
To me the North Half would be the same as the Northeast Quarter and the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter.
What say you?
This situation is specifically addressed in Brown's BC & LP, 7th Edition on page?ÿ 444, Section 13.5
"Principle 6. When a fraction of the whole is conveyed, such as the west half, it is presumed that the conveyance is based on area measurement unless stated otherwise.
This principle in not in harmony with the federal statutes that specify the method to be used for sectionalized land. ...."
I don't have Brown in front of me, so I cant evaluate the context, but, calling for an aliqout part is,"stating otherwise". A call for an aliqout part is a call for the original survey, and the original survey created the aliqout part under the established federal rules. Its the same as a call for a lot and block is a call for the subdivision plat and all the applicable laws and rules of interpreting a subdivision plat.?ÿ
Brown is a good resource, but I certainly wouldn't look to him when it comes to PLSS questions.?ÿ
If you read further than what is quoted it becomes clear that Brown is?ÿdeferring?ÿto The Manual, IMHO.
