So how do you know if it is 'north' or 'NORTH' if the deed is written in all CAPS? This situation is very simular to a deed saying 2640' or 1320' when they really intend to go to the quarter section line or sixteenth line by breaking down the quarter into aliquot parts. I once worked for a surveyor who always wrote all legal description in all CAPS so he didn't have to worry about which words should have capital letters.
> If you are the original surveyor and the parcel has been in existence for some time then you are surveying for both adjoiners of every line, it's not the same as cutting out a new parcel from only one owner. It may be like a deed stakeout except all adjacent owners need to be in the loop and accept the survey. You would be doing the survey for all of them even if only one is paying the bill.
>
:good: :good:
> Also, that is about a standard metes without bounds description in my parts. There are thousands of them and there are no record of them being surveyed. Yet they all have been measured somehow, marked with something, fenced and occupied for decades. Why the majority of surveyors think they need to be disturbed and resurveyed with all the gaps, overlaps and other confusion put into the record is nothing short of a disaster. Its like a dog chasing it's tail. It's not perfect, never will be.
Dead on Leon. I'd guess that over 90% of the parcels in my area are described similar to this one. These descriptions have worked for well over 100 years, and only recently, with the advent of the "perfect measurer" have they become "problems".
I didn't notice anybody suggesting that you hold the N and W sides at cardinal directions instead of section lines.
The alternatives are to make the S and E sides parallel to those and take the mismatch on distance in the diagonal (188.19 instead of 187 record), OR to hold the distances and let the S and E sides wander 6 to 8 minutes from being parallel to their opposites.
Your plan seems quite good except for ignoring the usual priority of calls. Are you certain they didn't tape it?
-----
I find this example quite interesting, since a relative's significant other has a similar parcel that hasn't been surveyed.
It is described as a rectangle, undoubtedly a parallelogram, so we don't have mathematical misclosure complicating things.
But adding to the fun, there may be no quarter corner preserved to start from (at least no magnetic signal in the gravel road and most around there do have), and the fences on either side of the road don't align by a few feet. The description was obviously written thinking of the fence near the east side of the SW 1/4. The fence might be the line under the state's 10-year acquiescence, OR some surveyor might decide to put in a quarter corner and center of section, and slide his parcel a few feet, putting his garage over the line if it goes that direction, and leaving him a mess to negotiate.
It seems that nobody around there goes to the trouble of getting things surveyed unless forced to.
> The remaining tract or adjoiner is the NW 1/4 except the tract cut out around the farm buildings.
Figures. You can count on me to ask the obvious and dumb questions.
Carry on. This is a fun thread.
I'm going from memory, always dangerous, but early on I was told all caps meant cardinal and it said so in Blacks Law Dictionary and I think I read it again in Wattles. I don't have Black's and my Wattles is currently on loan to someone taking the test.
I don't think I've seen more than one or two descriptions in my life where the entire description is in caps. Very sorry you have to suffer through that.
Once again, in my area it matters and in yours obviously not so much.
Steve
(EDIT: Section lines were intended to be cardinal)
guilty as charged
All caps works great for me. Love it. Love it. Love it.
The other interesting question is, when they told the lawyer how much they wanted to carve out, did they measure from the center of the road or the fence at the edge of the easement? Somebody could be surprised.
> I'm going from memory, always dangerous, but early on I was told all caps meant cardinal
I've never heard such a thing, it would be interesting if you could find an authoritative source.
> (EDIT: Section lines were intended to be cardinal)
Well, more or less. However, that is how the lay person generally views section lines and interior lines. Remember, an ambiguous description must be interpreted with the conditions at the time of creation considered, therefore, the presumption would be parallel with the section (or interior) lines.
Yes, I would let that SW'erly 187 float, for sure.
Here are the aerials of the location. The first image shows the entire section. The survey is in the NW corner of the NW 1/4. The second is the tract to be surveyed. Flat, flat, flat! I can see across any mile in any direction. 🙂
A serious question
The general consensus seems to be to let the 187' course "float". However, I could make the argument that the shorter the line the more accurate it could be measured. So, why not say that the 187' is more important than all the other longer distances.
Now, I will admit that I agree with most of the solutions above, but I ask this question.
However, I am a little concerned that so many above didn't want to even look for evidence before deciding what to do.
Jerry, you said there was no evidence (I guess you meant fence), but in the photo I see all sorts of evidence of use and occupation that I think should be considered.
guilty as charged
All caps for me too. Makes for a lot clearer and easier to read text when photo copied or put on microfilm.
It's interesting that the called distance of 187 ft. is so close to the computed 187.42 based on cardinal directions. It might well mean that the attorney was able to compute a hypotenuse to the nearest foot, which would be unusual but not impossible. He would have just had to remember his 9th-grade plane geometry.
It also probably means (as these calls generally do) that he thought the section lines were in cardinal directions. That in turn is a good argument for running parallel to them. He thought of the west section line as running North, and then called for a direction of South on the east line of the parcel.
Looks as though the SE corner was cut off to clear the center-pivot irrigation system whose tracks can be seen. Those things aren't easy to move, and there would have been no reason to do so, so it's probably in the same place as when the description was written.
The cut-off triangle has even dimensions, 135 ft. N-S and 130 ft. E-W, which suggests it was figured out later rather than being taped by the property owner. Again that might have been done by the attorney, scaling from an aerial. He presumably intended to keep the diagonal line clear of both the center-pivot arm and the buildings.
The distance of 444 feet on the west line tends to indicate that the owner taped to something that existed at the time. Otherwise why isn't it 440, 445, or 450? Since there are no fences, he might have stopped at a mow line or cultivation line. Of course the present E-W cultivation line is probably not in the same place.
An aerial from the 1980s, though not of much use for retracement, might shed some more light on what the parties intended.
A serious question
North probably means either north or something relatively close to north.
Same holds for east, south and west.
I was once involved in a case where east was ruled to have a 90 turn of 250 feet north in it.
I say the more you disagree with occupation,in favor of a potentially nebulous call, the more certain you have to be that the intent is being adhered to.
Often . . . in a court case, old owners that live in Florida, Mexico and Cuba, seem to come out of the woodwork to testify as the the long-term understanding of the line's location ... in short talk to the parties involved and you might find the problem isn't even a problem..
I agree Dave. It looks like the farmer pretty well knows where the lines are/where.
A serious question
Absolutely! :good:
Because it was never measured on the ground
"The general consensus seems to be to let the 187' course "float". However, I could make the argument that the shorter the line the more accurate it could be measured. So, why not say that the 187' is more important than all the other longer distances."
The more likely scenario is that someone went out and measured a rectangle as best they could. Then one helper walked west from the southeast corner while another walked north. When they saw they had adequate clearance to miss the center pivot wheeltrack, they measured how far they each went from the corner, rounded it to the nearest five feet and, voila, the diagonal was calculated to be about 187 feet. To be more precise would suggest knowing the true angle between the west section line and the north section line.
Because it was never measured on the ground
> " rounded it to the nearest five feet and, voila, .
550 feet, 309 feet 187 feet, 420 feet 444 feet- .... 2/5 well there goes that theory.....:-P
Au contraire, mon ami
The 444 measurement is the only distance actually measured that was not divisible by five. My guess is that measurement was to something very specific that was to be the visible dividing point, perhaps an existing fence post, tree, power pole, etc. The other measurements were all roughed out to the nearest five feet as described above. The 309 number was the result of subtracting a number divisible by five from the 444 figure.
