A common deed found in both Oregon and Washington is the metes deed 660' by 330'. In general this deed begins at an aliquot corner (say the S1/4 of the Section. the metes reads again in general East 330', North 660', West 330', South 660' to POB. No mention of aliquot division excepting the POB and the metes can be found in a aliquot breakdown of the theoretical interior Section.
Is this type of deed the equivalent of W1/2, SW1/4, SW1/4, SW1/4 of Section X?
bridge
Depends. A conveyance from a grantor that owns the entirety of the adjoining property is pretty unambiguous, it's 330'x660'. A description with cardinal aliquot distances that have different adjoining titles requires a little more investigation.
bridger48, post: 340327, member: 6251 wrote: A common deed found in both Oregon and Washington is the metes deed 660' by 330'. In general this deed begins at an aliquot corner (say the S1/4 of the Section. the metes reads again in general East 330', North 660', West 330', South 660' to POB. No mention of aliquot division excepting the POB and the metes can be found in a aliquot breakdown of the theoretical interior Section.
Is this type of deed the equivalent of W1/2, SW1/4, SW1/4, SW1/4 of Section X?
bridge
I would say so (given no other information) except I think you meant W1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4 SE1/4).....except if you are retracing the deed, and you find it set according to a literal interpretation of the deed....and the original grantor had the authority to grant the literal interpretation of the deed (ie: you find that the grantor owned the whole section and you find that it was staked and the grantee took ownership according.y)
Most likely this is an aliquot but circumstances may dictate otherwise.
For example, suppose the Grantor had a Patent for the entire 40 and the Grantee laid out his 330' by 660' despite the forty being long or short...that would be a case of the dimensions ruling except the section line and north-south centerline would likely control for those two lines.
bridger48, post: 340327, member: 6251 wrote: A common deed found in both Oregon and Washington is the metes deed 660' by 330'. In general this deed begins at an aliquot corner (say the S1/4 of the Section. the metes reads again in general East 330', North 660', West 330', South 660' to POB. No mention of aliquot division excepting the POB and the metes can be found in a aliquot breakdown of the theoretical interior Section.
Is this type of deed the equivalent of W1/2, SW1/4, SW1/4, SW1/4 of Section X?
bridge
No, but senior rights, and the need to eliminate small useless gaps will often make them equivalent on the ground.
First stop... Master Title Plat
Second stop... Historical Index
Third stop... Original Patent Documents (including all adjoiners)
Fourth stop... County Recorder (ab initio Title Abstracts [all adjoiners])
Fifth stop... Field investigation (evidence of occupation etc.)
Sixth stop...or maybe FIRST (Talk to the folks involved).........
As has been alluded to above...IT DEPENDS
:whistle:
I would be looking for other deeds adjoining said tract and others granted by the same grantor during the same time frame. For example, there might be three 330 x 660 tracts side by side and then one that reads differently that would finish off the remainder of the frontage or whatever. Something like, 328 feet this way, 660 feet that way, then 332 parallel to the first call, then 660 to p.o.b. Or maybe not. If there were four identical descriptions that when added together would be a nominal aliquot, odds are they thought they were doing an aliquot split on each.
Tom Adams, post: 340333, member: 7285 wrote: I would say so (given no other information) except I think you meant W1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4 SE1/4).....except if you are retracing the deed, and you find it set according to a literal interpretation of the deed....and the original grantor had the authority to grant the literal interpretation of the deed (ie: you find that the grantor owned the whole section and you find that it was staked and the grantee took ownership according.y)
you are correct, my sketch was based on the SW1/4 and wrote up an example for the SE1/4 opps.
bridger48, post: 340327, member: 6251 wrote: A common deed found in both Oregon and Washington is the metes deed 660' by 330'. In general this deed begins at an aliquot corner (say the S1/4 of the Section. the metes reads again in general East 330', North 660', West 330', South 660' to POB. No mention of aliquot division excepting the POB and the metes can be found in a aliquot breakdown of the theoretical interior Section.
Is this type of deed the equivalent of W1/2, SW1/4, SW1/4, SW1/4 of Section X?
bridge
The deed is but one piece of evidence. Research patent through parcel creation. Pull the maps and Corner Records if available.
Pile this all in order from oldest to newest, then look on the ground. Talk to long standing owners. The answer should reveal itself. If not you have an opportunity to walk the owners through a resolution...
I shouldn't have said anything (re: the correct aliquot portion). Everyone knew what you meant, and it's just a hypothetical example. My apologies.
Is this type of deed the equivalent of W1/2, SW1/4, SW1/4, SW1/4 of Section X?
It often can be, but the history of surveys, of title, and of occupation might lead you to other conclusions. I'm working on a project where GLO made a serious mess of things, little GLO monumentation remains, the section is not "regular" no matter what one uses to locate it, and fences around a parcel have for at least 70 years been almost exactly 990 feet apart. If I was surveying that parcel I'd be disinclined to break down the section and proportion the record 60 rod parcel width.
Part of this 'problem,' is [often] the failure of the Surveyor to recognize a Section that has been LEGALLY subdivided in the distant past, occupied and improved for decades, BUT doesn't necessarily conform to the Theoretical Subdivision (Chapter 3) of said Section.
Treating a Section that has been satisfactorily subdivided, occupied, bought, sold, inherited, and existing in harmony for decades, as if it were a virgin piece of coyote pasture out in BFE, is NOT what "we" get paid for. Creating a problem where none existed (until the survey technician got there), is NOT Professional Practice.
Just my two bits.
Loyal
The fact is that it is not being described in aliquot format. It has ambiguity as most surveyors would look @ it because of the standard way of thinking of aliquot divisions. If it is a previously-created description, you must go outside of the four corners of the document and review extrensic evidence to come up with more clarity as to the intent.
As a matter of fact, if you were to look @ the description in a literal manner, and take the language and apply it to the four corners of the deed, it does not, in any way, call to aliquot or proportional measurements.
The deed has 4 cardinal direction calls. Also the Deed lines adjoins 2 one quarter section lines that will not be north-south or east-west. Excluding the case of a original surrounding grantee where it is possible to ignore existing aliquot lines, the construction by metes is left with running along the East-West One-quarter Section line for 330', parallel to the North-South One-Quater Section Line for 660 feet and thence parallel to the Southerly line.. I find no such intent in the language of the deed. Rather as a whole the deed looks very aliquot in intent.
bridge
bridger48, post: 340404, member: 6251 wrote: I find no such intent in the language of the deed. Rather as a whole the deed looks very aliquot in intent.
The big problem I see is revealed in the title of this thread - "surveying of the deed". I survey boundaries, not deeds. In many cases, such as this one (as the bionic one said) the written description is only a part of the information that you will need to solve this ambiguity.
Have the boundaries been established on the ground? What legal principles apply in their establishment? Where are they located?
bridger48, post: 340404, member: 6251 wrote: The deed has 4 cardinal direction calls. Also the Deed lines adjoins 2 one quarter section lines that will not be north-south or east-west. Excluding the case of a original surrounding grantee where it is possible to ignore existing aliquot lines, the construction by metes is left with running along the East-West One-quarter Section line for 330', parallel to the North-South One-Quater Section Line for 660 feet and thence parallel to the Southerly line.. I find no such intent in the language of the deed. Rather as a whole the deed looks very aliquot in intent.
bridge
If you found where a survey from, say 1960, staked that description by going cardinal directions with complete disregard to aliquot lines locations, and especially if those lines were settled to, what exactly can you point to that says he did it wrong. He followed exactly what the deed transfer told him to do. The deed description doesn't point to aliquot lines, any proportionate language, etc. Exactly what would your basis be for disregarding an
Whereas I would tend to go with your interpretation if I were the first ever surveyor of the property and no one had laid any physical claim to subject parcel, I have never had the opportunity to be the first surveyor to set a virgin land based on the sort of description you are describing.
In my opinion, original surveying is fun and easy, boundary retracement can be a real beast.
My takeaway from such poorly-written descriptions isn't so much as to the answer to how to re-establish those corners, as much as learning that these aren't the kind of problems that I want my original descriptions to cause. (every lawyer can probably dig you up a legal case that determined either of the two possible solutions as the correct one.
Generally in this part of the world, those are descriptions with surrounding descriptions all adding up to a regular 40. You go out to the field and put the puzzle together with evidence on the ground, I'm doing one now, if I use the exact numbers I will be "off" the fence about 6'.
When I see such a description, my initial suspicion is that the original parties had no idea that there may actually be a difference between describing by nominal aliquot distances and a proper aliquot division. But as most others have said, the deed description is but one piece of evidence. The real story will be found in the history and the facts on the ground specific to that parcel.
bridger48, post: 340327, member: 6251 wrote: A common deed found in both Oregon and Washington is the metes deed 660' by 330'. In general this deed begins at an aliquot corner (say the S1/4 of the Section. the metes reads again in general East 330', North 660', West 330', South 660' to POB. No mention of aliquot division excepting the POB and the metes can be found in a aliquot breakdown of the theoretical interior Section.
Is this type of deed the equivalent of W1/2, SW1/4, SW1/4, SW1/4 of Section X?
bridge
I hate these type of descriptions where the intent is muddled. If the intent was for this to be an aliquot part it should of been written that way.
I'm working on one right now where the previous owner intended to sell my client all of the lakefront property. However, since their property hadnt been surveyed since 1930, they had no idea where the actual property line was and subsequently not all of the property my client purchased was lakefront property. They all had good intentions but what was written in the deed was contrary to their intentions (not to mention the seller didn't own all the of property she was intending to convey) The legal and survey research clearly indicate the intent.
WA-ID Surveyor, post: 340520, member: 6294 wrote: I hate these type of descriptions where the intent is muddled. If the intent was for this to be an aliquot part it should of been written that way.
I'm working on one right now where the previous owner intended to sell my client all of the lakefront property. However, since their property hadnt been surveyed since 1930, they had no idea where the actual property line was and subsequently not all of the property my client purchased was lakefront property. They all had good intentions but what was written in the deed was contrary to their intentions (not to mention the seller didn't own all the of property she was intending to convey) The legal and survey research clearly indicate the intent.
In matters of law, intent IS literally what was written. This may or may not relate to 'what they meant to do' ....