Assignment:?ÿ Locate the center of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11.
?ÿ
Existing conditions:
1. No proven corners in the area.
2. All external 40 acre corners (1/4, 1/4 corners) on the outside lines of the SW1/4 are in place for 50 to 100 years. There are no disputes.
3. However, external corners are in random locations, nothing lines up, with some being as much as 50 feet out of position. All corners are accepted and all external corners will remain without challenge.
?ÿ
Bearing/bearing intersect to locate the center corner (of SW1/4) will create "40's" that are very dissimilar in area.
?ÿ
Equal distance basis will create similar area "40's".
?ÿ
What would be your basis for locating the center corner of the SW1/4, and why would you do it that way?
I would think bearing-bearing like you're supposed to and to heck with the area dissimilarities.
Do you have anything to go off of for the original survey?
Determine where your 1/4 and 1/16 on the outside of the section is with the unchallenged section corners. And rebuild the section from there. Sounds like the section needs to be resurveyed and fixed if absolutely nothing can he found.?ÿ
?ÿ
You could keep the same bearings present between each external corner and at least have a starting place to rebuild the part of the section you need to get the center.?ÿ
?ÿ
Either way without more corners it will be speculation. All the corners had to have been set and if you calc anything it wont be "true" but probabaly pretty close(hopefully).
?ÿ
Bearing/bearing intersect to locate the center corner (of SW1/4) will create "40's" that are very dissimilar in area
If everything on the exterior is within 50 ft of theoretical, the 40's won't be VERY dissimilar in area, at worst within 3 acres and probably less.?ÿ If the interior of the section has no monuments or significant occupation lines, why wouldn't you do it by the book?
I can think of a section that was surveyed by the county surveyor about 1920. ?ÿIt was very misshapen. ?ÿThe center corner was set at the midpoint of a line connecting the south quarter corner to the north quarter corner. ?ÿThis satisfied all landowners in the section. ?ÿFences were erected accordingly. ?ÿPeace has continued to exist.
?ÿ
Search very hard to find some similar survey work that might justify what you perceive as irregularities. ?ÿWhat "the book" says and what keeps all property owners happy may be two very different things.?ÿ
If there are local property corners that are dependent on the location of the C/4,?ÿ I would use the local ties to determine where the original center was set.
There is a distorted section southwest of Grass Valley, Nevada County, California. The old Division of Forestry acquired a 10 acre aliquot and built a lookout. In the 1960s the Division Surveyors found out the lookout was in another aliquot, OOPS. The west quarter section corner is nowhere near where anybody thought it was. Fortunately the adjoining property owners agreed to an exchange and we now own the correct aliquot.
First see where the techinicaly correct boundaries are, then look at occupation for the boundaries of your parcel.
The occupations and accepted corners of other boundaries don't mean anything for your parcel,?ÿ but they can leed you to the locations of original corners.?ÿ
Your job is the four boundaries (or more) of the one parcel, not to make the whole section fit. Occupation, reliance, and acquiesced boundaries only matter to the parties directly involved. When two owners two parcels away decideded they would use a goat stake for the 1/4, it didn't move your client's boundaries, unless of course they and their neighbor decided to measure from?ÿ the same goat stake.
?ÿ
I would say it may be neither bearing-bearing or equal distance, but where the best evidence places the C 1/4.
I'm reminded of a survey I worked on in Section 33 where a township line was south of a river, but nearly all of the township was north of the river (river is also the county line).?ÿ The river bisected the northwest quarter of the section.?ÿ The first GLO survey ran the township boundary per the book.?ÿ The second GLO survey broke down the township into section, by the book...for the most part.?ÿ
For the section I was working in, and the others bisected by the river, the GLO surveyor decided to run from North to South.?ÿ This put fraction lots in the south half of the section and the procedure was clearly spelled out in the notes.?ÿ
All corners were found, except the south 1/4, but none were original monuments (redwood stake per notes, IP in the field)?ÿ Breaking down the Section and the fraction lots, either by bearing-bearing or equal distances would throw the perimeter boundaries of subdivisions (several hundred lots), a golf course, and the future location of the commercial development into question.
Also previously, a well respected county surveyor ran up the west section line 2640', set a pipe and over 2640' to set the center of section, both which were found.?ÿ By breaking down the section by either method you discussed, it would have thrown the C 1/4 off around one-hundred feet.?ÿ The only sensible option was to hold the subdivision corners, reference the old C 1/4, create a really funky section breakdown.
The north, east, & south line of the section measured closed to the GLO plat, but the west section line's distance was off.?ÿ The W 1/4 set by the County Surveyor was close, however the C 1/4 wasn't close.?ÿ However, all these monuments were relied upon, and used to create subdivisions and other boundaries.?ÿ So the section break down created some awkward quadrilaterals, but that was the solution that kept the existing boundaries unchanged.
Also, if I am remembering correctly, a survey that established the county road held the closing corners from the South as the Range line, and this further confused things.
This survey was done before I was licensed, and the final decision was that the boundaries south of the river shown no material discrepancies from the other surveys of record, only when we broke down the entire section was there an issue.
?ÿ
?ÿ
Thanks to all,
?ÿ
I appreciate all the discussion/help. This site is a tremendous benefit to any and all in this profession. None of us has a lock on all the answers, and listening (reading) to all ideas can certainly stimulate thought. I'm familiar with what the book says, but wanted to listen/consider what others have to say.
?ÿ
This particular section ?? all the exterior lines, and the majority of interior 1/4, 1/4 corners ?? was resurveyed in 1917 (GLO survey circa 1840), and the majority of "40" corners were placed at that time. A resurvey for a paper company was done around 1970, by a reputable company and all of the 1917 corners were held.
?ÿ
Been doing this kind of surveying stuff for pretty good while, including court room work in Alabama, Georgia and Florida. Also, a very difficult section breakdown case in 1979, where the Florida Supreme Court agreed with me (Seddon v Harpster, Lake Co. 1979). But, when you start to think you've seen it all you come across something very interesting and out of the ordinary. In my younger days I always approached things by the book, but I soon began to experience enough surprises from court rulings to realize not everything is by the book. At least not in my corner of the world.
?ÿ
Probably the worst shock came to me right after I felt the euphoria of having a Supreme Court land mark notch on my belt. I was tasked with running out an 80 acre parcel. Simple enough, as I had already ran the section out and had a complete section breakdown. So, I did the job by the book, set all the corners, drew up the map showing a fence encroachment onto my client of about 90 feet down one side, and collected my money. A few months went by, and the farmer next door who had built the fence got his own surveyor to come in and survey his land. His surveyor came in and set monuments at the fence corners. It didn't worry me though because I had simply monumented the deed and the fence line was clearly shown on my map, along with the word "ENCROACHMENT". Also, I had cautioned my client he possibly could lose the land. Nothing special or different, although I was a little irked that the neighbor's surveyor had set monuments over on my client and about every farmer in the county had seen the flags flying proudly at the fence corners. I later realized the sight of competing corners (plus this guy was the mayor) had all the land owners thinking there was a disagreement between me and some "foreign" surveyor.
?ÿ
Time went by, and I was perhaps a bit smug in my work, never feeling any need to defend or explain my monuments to all the land owners in that part of the county. They all knew me as I was the local, and this other surveyor had to be imported from some far away place, and I had a reputation (I thought) of doing superior work. In hind sight though, while I took for granted that everybody knew this was a possession issue, and that the other surveyor was just jumping the gun on what a court might or might not award his client. I thought wrong.
?ÿ
Long story short, so the situation ends up in court, and I was not even called to the court to testify. This did not surprise. There was nothing to explain, as this was not a matter of a survey dispute. It was a question of how long, and under what conditions the possession had taken place, and whether or not the judge would rule with my client or rule for the other guy. Well, anyway the court ruled that the possession had existed long enough to effect a transfer by unwritten means. This led to the winning party unceremoniously removing my monuments and throwing my monuments in the ditch.
?ÿ
I was not aware at the time, but a lot land owners who knew me had witnessed or heard of my corners being pulled up, and this had everybody in the county believing my survey had been "proven wrong" by the court. I knew better, because I had already let my client know he was probably going to lose. What I did not know, or count on, was the effect of everybody hearing my corners were no good was like labeling me as not such a good surveyor. And, take it from me, a lot of people you know will hear negative stuff about you, but be afraid of saying anything to you about it. Two or three years after the court case a well connected large land owner talked with me about the damage to my professional reputation. I explained to him about how my work was not rebuked by the court, and that it was nothing but a simple matter where the court ruled the fence had been there long enough. This guy was a regular client, and still is, and he assured me he knew it had nothing to do with my work, but I learned from him that not many people had a clue. Just that people with little info will talk and cause much harm.
?ÿ
So, the lesson I learned from that little episode is to never, ever, ever set and flag a monument 90 feet across a fence, even though the deed corner of my clients land is 90 feet on the other side of the fence. I refuse to do that. What I will do, is set monumention at the fence line, withhold flagging it, and show all the facts on the map. I then advise my client that it is my opinion an unwritten transfer of title has likely occurred, and that I can only venture across the fence to set his deed corner provided his attorney directs me to do so. I be dog if I am ever going to allow my reputation to take another such hit. Also, I have 2 sons that are Florida licensed, a grandson lawyer studying to become a licensed surveyor, and a grandson in college studying Geomatics, and I have made sure they have all been educated.
?ÿ
I realize I deviated off the point/topic but perhaps there's a point there somewhere.
All this talk about doing things by the book... but don't forget the book has more pages dedicated to not using the standard math than to actually using it.?ÿ
?ÿ
Here here...
Survey philosophies tend to run in three camps.
Some review the various math solutions available, choosing the one that seems to work best. Put another way, they impose the solution that seems the least damaging.
Others grab hold of any scant indication someone walked by a place, never determining if what they have found is evidence or the rock collection of a bored eight year old.
The final approach is more balanced. The surveyor knows where to look for evidence and finds it. They evaluate and develop evidence, evaluating it in light of the various forms of law. When a single solution emerges they recognize it. When it is beyond a survey problem they understand how to professionally walk the owners to a aolution, even if that means referring them to another professional.
Rant mode off.
All this talk about doing things by the book... but don't forget the book has more pages dedicated to not using the standard math than to actually using it.?ÿ
Yep, the 2009 Manual has language sprinkled throughout it that the default procedure should be rejected when it doesn't give a "good" answer.
I don't know about other states, but here in Colorado some of my peers decided that it was worthwhile to statutorily require the Manual solution be used when subdividing a section.?ÿ Here is the text.
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.
(2) (a) A section may be subdivided by:
(I) Surveying all necessary aliquot lines in the field; or
(II) Computing the location of the required aliquot corners after making a field survey which includes all required control corners of the section.
(b) Any section subdivided pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (2) shall include all control corners that were originally monumented by the United States government, which must either be found or restored in the field according to the standards set forth in section 38-51-104.
(c) Monument records shall be filed pursuant to section 38-53-104, describing each such corner.
(d) For any section subdivided pursuant to this subsection (2) the location of original aliquot corners of, and procedures used in, the governing official United States government survey, where applicable, shall take precedence.
While this covers the entire section, some have interpreted it to include the subdivision of previously surveyed aliquot parts, such as the SW 1/4 of Sec. 11.
Section 5-5?ÿby law, weight shall be given to locally marked boundaries insofar as they are based on good faith reliance on evidence ?ÿof the original survey and protect bona fide rights as to location of the boundaries of alienated land.?ÿ
Section 5-6?ÿThe general exception is the boundary created when the United States owned neither side of the boundary. In such cases, the appropriate State or foreign laws and rules must be consulted first...
I would be doing some deed research to possibly find clues about the origin of the external monuments. It might shed light upon something. I do it all the time, even a PLSS state.?ÿ
