only evidence is the long standing and accepted fence as the boundary
That's enough evidence.
But if you accept the established lines as 1/16th lines, file on your corners, explain in the corner record why you accepted the lines, referencing the manual to back up your decision, then even the BLM will be hard pressed to dispute you and there wouldn't be any adjustments to be made. Since there is federal land involved I would tread very carefully.
I'm sort of leaning that way. If someone makes a fuss later the owners can always do agreements/adjustments then. There is no loans here and if I make sure one particular title company isn't involved it would be a clean deal. Generally the Utah BLM is good to accept private surveyors work. Unless they find oil/gas out there the BLM will never care less. Accepting the 'established' 1/16 lines actually expands the US mineral interest a bit.
Seems like a classic case of Fractional section establishment.
Don't have enough time to reply other than generalities but if the sectional lines actually ran on the ground at that time were Fractional as the Map indicates, (and the field Notes should as well,) then BLM may reestablish via Fractional as per the manual.
From memory this would be using Due N, S, E, W direction from the actual corners set as that was the instructions for Fractional Section Breakdowns.
Now maybe you can throw out chapter 3 by the evidence of the fence and rely more on chapters 5-7.
I would be using weight mean bearings using all the corners I could find from the original GLO survey.as that is what you are bound by in these circumstance, and then comparing to the fence line. this idea of just accepting the fence because it is there is a puzzling to me, because how do you know where it came from or who put it there, was it placed there to represent property lines or just a fence of convenience for pastured cattle until you can answer that it is just a piece of evidence, not the proverbial smoking gun. We just completed a survey for a client who run straight fence lines using his own transit, and they were no where near line. You mention a survey (when?) where they turned 90 have you found evidence of that survey? How does it compare to instruction of the manual of its time? if you find evidence, then you could base your work on it and retrace their work.
this idea of just accepting the fence because it is there is a puzzling to me
Yeah, the fence is there but there is more to it than that. According to the 80 year old landowner who's grandfather homesteaded some of the property the fence has been in the same place all his life. It's been treated as and been the boundary between the adjoiners. I have no direct evidence of a survey such as a map or public record. But the fence is straight through rolling terrain and some trees. It wasn't placed at the most convenient place just to keep the cows or sheep in. It was specifically placed starting at the original and documented north quarter corner of the section. So although you can't find direct evidence of a recorded survey you also can't view the situation and say they didn't have it surveyed.
In my area there are almost no public records of surveys until the filing act kicked in in 1987. Some Utah counties had good county surveyors and have good historical records. My county didn't and still doesn't other than the work private surveyors do and file. The county has almost no budget for surveying work. Same ole, same ole.
In this situation I have all the GLO corners for the section. I filed corner records on them a couple of years ago, every one a GLO brass cap except for one that is a county proportioned marker. So the survey could be done by the book to exact precision, a new section breakdown is possible per the original markers. But this section has already been subdivided for a very long time, there is just no public record of it and apparently it wasn't done exactly by the book. So there is a couple of ways to go. I can call the best evidence available, the fences the monument of a good faith original survey, accept that, file the survey and go on my way with the landowners blessing (they consider the fences the boundaries), or I can do a new section breakdown, show everything “off” and then proceed to get boundary line adjustments to get back to the fences as the landowners desire.
I suppose there is a third option, litigation, where according to common law the boundaries are fixed by long acquiescence or repose along the fence lines.
So there is my opinion, three possibilities and ways to arrive at the fences are where the boundaries are.
According to the 80 year old landowner who's grandfather homesteaded some of the property the fence has been in the same place all his life.
Now you have added to your evidence, and answered a few of my questions.
But, have you tried using fractional section sub procedures to just by chance to see it the fence fits that line? does that change the 50 foot miss?
I am just playing devils advocate here, things I always ask myself, our PLS, and other local Surveyors, when there are possibly different ways to handle situations.
And yes, the claims by other Surveyors to accept fence lines just because they are there does indeed puzzle me, especially when you can not supply the who, what, when, where, and how.
The fractional sub process for this situation would be parallel to the west and north section lines (there are not two lines to mean for a direction each way from the 1856 survey). It doesn't work with the fences and would almost run in to the 1913 south ¼ corner. I believe it was some sort of a stub in from the north ¼ corner. Whether they turned 90 from the north section line or went 'south' from there, the fence goes close to ¾ mile south, makes a nice 90 degree bend and goes west to the section line. I think the principle of repose is the legal doctrine here as it's been there so long nobody can say how it got there, but it's been accepted and thus assumed to be correct an needs to 'lie in repose.'
In some respects it's hard to go with the law. A new and improved section breakdown could be done on the computer in a few minutes.
By no means am I one who holds mathematics over evidence. I use both together & case law to come up with a solution.
And yes, you do have multiple lines to create weighted mean bearings, unless by some magic all lines are perfectly straight;-) :
NW Section Corner to N 1/4 to Witness Point(two line segments)
For the line East out of the West 1/4
NW Section Corner to West 1/4 to SW Section Corner (two line segments)
For line South out of the N 1/4
this will create a Center 1/4 position
then hold the bearing of the South line of the North 1/2 of the SW Quarter parallel to line East from the West 1/4, as you have no South line of the Section, to a point intersecting the line coming South from the North 1/4 to create the CS 1/16th
Like I stated previously, I am just playing devils advocate here. and Just having fun as I sit here drafting up a new plat
Technically yes on the means except I don't have the witness point and the west 1/4 is a proportioned corner (almost straight). I think is safe to assume that the fence wasn't surveyed technically to the Manual process. Not looking for a minute of angle more like 30.
alright, have a good night.:-)
> By no means am I one who holds mathematics over evidence. I use both together & case law to come up with a solution.
>
> And yes, you do have multiple lines to create weighted mean bearings, unless by some magic all lines are perfectly straight;-) :
>
> NW Section Corner to N 1/4 to Witness Point(two line segments)
> For the line East out of the West 1/4
>
> NW Section Corner to West 1/4 to SW Section Corner (two line segments)
> For line South out of the N 1/4
>
> this will create a Center 1/4 position
>
> then hold the bearing of the South line of the North 1/2 of the SW Quarter parallel to line East from the West 1/4, as you have no South line of the Section, to a point intersecting the line coming South from the North 1/4 to create the CS 1/16th
Those methods of weighted mean are one way to come up with the "theoretical" C1/4, another and maybe preferable one is B-B intersection to calc the C1/4: run east (parallel with line from NW sec cor to N1/4) from the W1/4 , and south from N1/4 (parallel with line from NW sec cor to W1/4). To calc the "theoretical" C-S 16th run from the calc'd C1/4 south (parallel with line from W1/4 to SW sec cor), and intersect with line from S16th running east (parallel with line from W1/4 to C1/4).
On another point, I keep hearing from many surveyors that in order to have a good faith location that isn't in exact position of the "theoretical" interior 16th lines, there must be positive evidence of a "survey" performed by a trained surveyor. However, I have never found any authoritative source of this claim. In fact, the 2009 Manual (see 6-35) specifically allows for good faith efforts of the landowners to establish these lines and corners, it also allows for deviations from the chapter 3 methods. The analysis of good faith efforts is an evidentiary and fact based analysis that goes far beyond merely using mathematics and measurements; intent and acceptance is a very important part of the equation.
> another and maybe preferable one is B-B intersection to calc the C1/4:
Please explain why you say it is preferable.
as you are now creating a angle point at the C 1/4, which is not depicted on the original survey. (I know they didn't survey what is depicted, as far as the two 80 acre tracts and the two government lots)
In that area and during the time period 1899 - 1905 was it typical for landowners to fence their boundaries in that area? What was the use of the land? Or did they generally not bother with fences or put fences up without regard to boundary lines? I suspect it is the former.
Historical development of the area is important evidence. It is presumed boundaries were surveyed (not necessarily precisely or by a surveyor, and that is not required) upon conveyance. My understanding is you would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the boundaries were not surveyed before you can decide this is not a retracement and resort to an original stakeout (of any flavor).
On the other hand, you only need a fair degree of certainty or preponderance of evidence to find the original boundary through use of retracement evidence.
Common historical practices coupled with corroborating testimony, backed up by reasonable precision for the time period. I know what I would do.
Unless they find oil/gas out there the BLM will never care less. Accepting the 'established' 1/16 lines actually expands the US mineral interest a bit.
Just assume that there is (they seem to be finding it everywhere), 1/2 (or 2/3rds depending on how you look at it) of the estate is Federal, now with the new Supreme ruling sand and gravel also is, so act accordingly. As far as the title people, they wouldn't even enter my mind when I decide on interior lines. You wouldn't be affecting anyone's title by holding long established lines.
