I'm retracing a lot in a 1968 plat, the south line of which is on the southern exterior boundary of the plat.?ÿ Unfortunately this line disagrees with more recent surveys of the adjoining parcels to the south. The disagreement is due to different section subdivision methods and I'd appreciate anyone's insight on how to best proceed.
The plat is in the northern portion of section 2, lying within what was originally governent lots 3 & 4 (against the north boundary of the township).?ÿ The legal of the parent parcel of the plat reads "the North 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 2..." (no mention of government lots).?ÿ The surveyor who did the plat subdivided the 1/4 of the section without consideration of the typical proportionment that would apply to the government lots, he just went to the midpoints like you would in a typical section. I should mention, this surveyor was known to have done good work so I highly doubt that his subdivision method was an oversight.?ÿ All legals of the neighboring parcels read the same way, without mention of the governent lots, just 1/4, 1/4, 1/4 descriptions.
Of course the more recent surveys of the adjoining properties DID take into account the typical proportional subdivision method, which accounts for about a 5 foot difference along the line in question.
What I'm coming to you to hopefully help with- are descriptions like these (without explicit mention of government lots) typical in fractional sections??ÿ Also, I do know that all of section 2 was originally patented to one owner. Could one have an argument that as soon as it was sold off to a common grantor, the legals that have transpired since should be taken at face value and the typical proportionment methods should not be utilized unless there is explicit mention of government lots?
I'm sure this is a common problem, although a first for me so any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!
The problem with using mid-point breakdowns of lots depends on the configuration and sequence. They can be long or short. True anyone can divide their lands how they wish, but if they use the wrong language it can create a problem. For instance Jones acquires all of Section 2 through patents.
At that point Lots 3 and 4 are defined. Jones grants the S2NW4, retaining Lots 3 and 4. The S2NW4 has a location based on the Government plat and it's now senior. Then Jones sells off the N2NW4 and someone stakes the line mid point but it's either leaving a gap or it's an overlap.?ÿ
Or Jones grants the N2NW4 which becomes senior, when he sells the S2NW4 it also creates an overlap or gap if it's an overlap, no real problem, can't sell what you don't own, if it's a gap there is a strip he still owns. The more proper description for that would be: NW4 excepting the N2NW4 as granted in Bk xxx, Pg xxx. I expect that didn't happen.?ÿ
So you have a gap or overlap.
With respect to the N2NW4NW4, since it was subdivided from one larger ownership, dedicated on the plat by the owners and staked on the ground I would not try and move anything. Maybe there is more to it but the owner staked a subdivision, dedicated it along a line he can establish without any conflict, then it's over at that point. No need to re-invent the wheel. Go with the original subdivision line, the second surveyor is making a mess of things.
A 1968 plat, based on a section breakdown and they stake a point 5 feet from the 1968 monument. I would be jumping up and down with joy to find those monuments.?ÿ
The patentees of course can subdivide their land however they want, but the problem, as illustrated by the conflicting surveys, is that aliqout divisions of areas that include lots are ambiguous. Are there any other clues as to what was intended?
If the descriptions include areas that match the lots you would have a good hint. If you have areas that are 1/4 of the total area of the 1/4 you know not to hold the lots, but you still have a boundary ambiguity.
Are there any occupation lines that can shed some light? This is not an easy situation to deal with. A good example why land surveyors should be the ones writing land descriptions.?ÿ
I see this occasionally and it makes me want to scream.
There are a few locals that insist on thrashing the plat because some title jockey called lot 4 the NW NW. The fact is the GLO often patented it that way, but called out the lot acreage.
The parts and lots on the plat are created when the survey is accepted. Owners can divide property in different ways but they cannot use aliquot descriptions that do not exist. I have yet to find a case where forcing the literal meaning of some post patent crap description has the effect of changing the patent description. The patent includes the plat and notes.?ÿ
If you study subdivision of sections with any depth at all you will see that lots are divided the same as 16th's, with the exception of proportioning according to acreage.?ÿ
Ignorant people have created deeds since the dawn of time.?ÿ This is why some States have attempted to limit such writings to Licensed Surveyors and Attorneys.?ÿ Still mistakes occur.
It helps if the wording in the deed clarifies any potential ambiguities.?ÿ I had a recent situation where the Southwest Quarter of a Section 31 had been passed via the mother's will to two of her sons with the one to have the west half and the other to have the east half.?ÿ The intent was that they each have essentially the same number of acres.?ÿ This quarter was short in the east-west direction producing roughly 158 total acres.?ÿ My survey ran the line from the midpoint of the north line of the quarter to the midpoint of the south line of the quarter.?ÿ The key phrases used were:?ÿ The west half of the entire Southwest Quarter and the east half of the entire Southwest Quarter.?ÿ The areas were within a few hundredths of an acre of being identical.?ÿ The only reason I was called in was to stake a line for construction of a barbed wire fence.
Could one have an argument that as soon as it was sold off to a common grantor, the legals that have transpired since should be taken at face value and the typical proportionment methods should not be utilized unless there is explicit mention of government lots?
I certainly would think so in conjunction with evidence of treating it that way.?ÿ If there has never been a deed referencing lots and surveys too that's pretty good evidence to my way of thinking. Particularly the first survey.?ÿ?ÿ
Unity of title is a red herring. When the plat is acceoted the legal parcels are created. The owner of the entire tract is free to sell whatever portion zoning allows, but it grotesquely improper to use a description that does not exist.?ÿ
I agree that just because a title jockey calls it the NW NW instead of lot 4, it doesn't make it so.?ÿ However, the question is if the 1968 plat, which was staked as such, should be held.?ÿ I will be doing more research into the specific chain of title, but for the sake of discussion, is the description ambiguous enough to to feel justified holding the 1968 plat without conflicting with the "can not sell what you do not own" doctrine??ÿ If nothing else had been done, I'd likely subdivide the section per the manual, but with the plat, I think I'd more inclined to accept the line as staked in 1968, particularly with what I would consider an ambiguous description.?ÿ But maybe the description isn't ambiguous at all?
Unless that is the intent.
If the description is considered ambiguous enough, I'd be happy to consider intent, or at least interpretation.?ÿ Which in 1968 was to take the description at face value.?ÿ I just want to make sure I'm correct to think that the description is in fact ambiguous before accepting the 1968 plat.?ÿ Thanks to all those who have replied, I really appreciate your input.
The default is to accept the original monuments as occupying the corner position. It would take something extraordinary to use a math position.?ÿ