The deed, as recorded, says something like: Beginning at the southeast corner of the north half of the northwest quarter of section 11; thence west 497 feet; thence north 231 feet; thence east 497 feet to the east line of said north half of the northwest quarter; thence south to the point of beginning.
The client, who retained that tract from the sale of the remainder of the north half/northwest quarter, reports how that description came about. Measurements were made along existing fences and their projection to the middle of the county road by the purchaser of the remainder. Now, he wants to split that small acreage into two tracts.
You discover the following: A) the apparent distance along the reported east line is only 217 feet, not 231 feet; B) the apparent distance along the reported south line is 502 feet, not 497 feet; C) the apparent distance along the reported west line is 235 feet, not 231 feet, but the distance from corner post to corner post is the stated 231 feet; and D) the apparent distance along the reported north line 495 feet, not 497 feet, but the distance from the northwest corner post to the visible center line of the county road surface is 497 feet.
It appears that what really happened is that those who did the measuring did so from the visible center of the county road along the north fence to the northwest corner post and, then, from there to the southwest corner post and decided they had all the information needed to write the description for the small acreage to be retained.
Do you set monuments based on what the deed says?
Do you set monuments to conform to the fence alignments on the west and north either extended or shortened to the controlling outer boundaries of the true aliquot part?
Well, Mr Cow, (What a bunch of Bull, your name is!)
Since the POINTS on the ground are what was INTENDED at the time of the sale, and
The POINTS on the ground are what are KNOWN and VISIBLE, and
Since he RETAINED this tract, then this retained tract is JUNIOR to what was sold, and
What was sold, WAS SURVEYED by the landowners, and
THE METHOD of the survey is known, and the actual POINTS of the survey are known, and
YOU (Holy Cow!) already KNOW all of the above, I suggest:
YOU (Holy Cow, down at the Moo and Poo) create a SURVEY based on the ORIGINAL survey, which as the same weight as the GLO survey, WITH fully documented historic account, to ESTABLISH the POINTS, with new DIMENSIONS, telling the FULL tale, (not tail) of historic weight, along with
Nice new survey marks, SET at the fence corners, WITH Mr cow's PLS number, to tie the monument, to your below recorded survey,
testimony
Dates
names
persons,
actions
activities, and
anything else that strikes you as relevant
Create a nice perdy document, and place said document onto public record. (if you are not in a recording state, well, there is a way to do it anyway). Then, BASED on this first recorded document, do your land split, complete with a REFERENCE to your prev documentation.
Now, you have a nice perdy survey, for others to see, and
you have a nice land split, and
you don't have any bovine excrement on your hands.
Capiche?
If I need to, I can try to get more bovine, so even a cow can understand, however, this is phase one attempt, and thus I have abbreviated my language.... Doo'nt forget to sign your documentary, and date it....
N
Holy Cow, post: 408310, member: 50 wrote: Do you set monuments to conform to the fence alignments on the west and north either extended or shortened to the controlling outer boundaries of the true aliquot part?
Yes.
This one is of the ÛÏdamned if you doÛ and ÛÏdamned if you donÛªtÛ deals. Personally I think you should break down everything in accordance with BLM and see how ÛÏout of whackÛ everything is and show it to the parties involved. However since a portion is already sold as described, that owner may not want anything to do with a ÛÏcorrectÛ survey. If thatÛªs the case I would hold the original description. That being said good luck with bearings!
IÛªm glad this one is yours and not mine. 🙂
moo and poo??...
It's the bovine version of the "Twist and Shout"! Also known as "Bill's Place", aka the "Mug and Sandwitch". Just a bovine bar.
What's the real deal here, is PROPER authority set those points. The fact that they used a MORE primitive mechanism to survey this, is THEIR fault. So, they have to live with the results.
I just laugh every time I see his name here, "Holy Cow". I think he picked that, because he has some farming activities. But, bovine as it may be, and distracting as it is to me, I think quite well of our beloved bovine. The moo and poo is the barnyard. While they wait for their fodder, while chewing their cud. That's "Where it happens" in our beloved bovine land.
🙂
N
Nate The Surveyor, post: 408316, member: 291 wrote: It's the bovine version of the "Twist and Shout"! Also known as "Bill's Place", aka the "Mug and Sandwitch". Just a bovine bar.
And a pickup joint for lonely bovines.
Here is HC trying to hit on a bovine of the oppisite sex?
Mr Cow, sorry for giving in to the temptation to admit to the humor I find in your choice of a moniker. I was pondering HOW it managed to squeek past my attempts to stifle it. then, it occurred to me, MR, is addressing a male, or considerable age, size, honor, or maturity. COW is a milk producing, large and generally good natured creature, that cogitates, likes good grass, and tends to be desirable to civilization. When assembled, I get this large, BULL, aka "bunch of bull". It was indiscreet of me.
So please if it is possible, what was it that Mr Cow asked?
Maybe I need to stop looking out the side window, and stick to the windscreen!
N
Danged if that don't look like a same-sex couple to me. 'Course, here in NC, gender identity has been on the front burner for a year, so we're attuned to that sort of thing. At least the two in the picture don't have bathroom issues.
Mr Cow, I think I ruinously hijacked your thread. Sorry.
OK, HOLD the fences, and HOLD the 40 line on the south, and on the east.
MathTeacher, post: 408320, member: 7674 wrote: At least the two in the picture don't have bathroom issues.
Looks like they may be out back of the bar in a "pasture". Ie: No "signs" indicative of what/who is supposed to use what facility so I suppose they just pee out in the open. 😉 (like "normal" people)
I don't even know what "oppisite sex" means anymore. :scream:
Dang, I was gonna suggest he just throw a rebar in the air, and where it landed, call it a found rebar, no cap.... No, I have never done that, but so many days I have sure wished it were an option....
Holy Cow, post: 408310, member: 50 wrote: It appears that what really happened is that those who did the measuring did so from the visible center of the county road along the north fence to the northwest corner post and, then, from there to the southwest corner post and decided they had all the information needed to write the description for the small acreage to be retained.
Intention of the parties. Do whatever documentation it takes to settle it in your jurisdiction and send the bill.
It sounds like both original parties are still around and hold title. The first thing I would do is try to get them to agree on where they thought the line was at the time they wrote the deeds. Then prepare corrections deeds, set monuments and file a survey.
I know it is a pain in the ass and sometimes viewed as an infringement of rights, but this is a good example of why requiring a survey to split land is a good thing. This would be a much bigger problem if the original parties were no longer in the picture.
This is what is known in the trade as an "original boundary."
This seems to be a problem in the PLSS States, if it is not spelled out how to solve the boundary in the Magic survey book, some Surveyors do not know how to solve the boundary.
You have a point of beginning, and a call to the north half of the northwest quarter, from those two corners you should be able to know what the intent was.
I would not set monuments based on the deed, I do not have much faith in any deed written by a non surveyor.
Dave Karoly, post: 408340, member: 94 wrote: This is what is known in the trade as an "original boundary."
Only if you can get both parties to agree of their intention. It all sounds so simple until one of the parties finds out that they are losing acreage, then they start to sing a different tune.
If I were in Mr Cow's shoes, and,
if the 2 parties got to fighting, and
I were placed on the witness stand, to defend my survey,
I'd happily share my interview notes, and plat, and tell the history, and what I believed, and why, and I'd tell the court that
"ORIGINAL MONUMENTS, WHERE ORIGINALLY SET, ARE THE LINE".
"ALL LAND IN THE USA ARE BASED ON OLDER, AND PREVIOUSLY SET LINES, AND MANY OF THESE WERE NOT ACCURATELY SET, HOWEVER, PROPER AUTHORITY WAS PRESENT".
Unless somebody could bring to the court, EVIDENCE to the contrary... then it could change.
It does not bother me...
Nate
billvhill, post: 408345, member: 8398 wrote: Only if you can get both parties to agree of their intention. It all sounds so simple until one of the parties finds out that they are losing acreage, then they start to sing a different tune.
The original boundary is still the original boundary, it just needs to be explained as Nate has explained here.
I would make the south boundary identical to the parent Tract boundary eliminating the gap between the fence and the boundary, if any.
If the client comes up short what he needs for to split the retained Tract then explain that his explanation of the procedure to arrive at the description is evidence of the agreement between him and his grantee as to the location of the created boundaries of the Tract in question, that it is not required that the location agreement be written and that the description is reasonably susceptible to an interpretation that the distances were intended to follow the fence and that they do substantially follow the fence. If he needs more land then he should negotiate a new agreement with the grantee as to location, in writing would be best.
