Picture it, rural town in timber country, summer of 1928:
Start at the 1/64th corner between the Center quarter section corner and the center north 1/16 corner and proceed N 87°39' W on the subdivisional line 915'; thence S 3°18' W 20' to the point of beginning; thence S 3°18' W 100'; thence N 87°39' W 50'; thence N 3°18' E 100'; thence S 87°39' E 50' to the point of beginning.
Note: the 1928 parcel's north line is nominally on the south r/w of the county road.
The county road has a 40' right-of-way per Deed recorded in 1930:
Beginning at 3/4" iron pipe (locatable today and is on the south r/w) a point northerly 638.36 feet from the CW1/16 corner; thence S 87° E some odd distance well past the above property to a point which I will call POINT-UNIVERSAL, then it goes south on a side street, then across the street 40', then north to the north side of the east-west street, down to the subdivisional line then south 40' to the p.o.b.
There is a 50'x100' fenced parcel out there that fits all the other parcels like a big puzzle which were granted out later and tied to POINT-UNIVERSAL. In other words if you ignore the remote POB ties they all have and just fit them together as if they are all tied to POINT-UNIVERSAL then they drop right on top of the fenced parcels.
If I plot the 1928 parcel right off the description like a Fundamentalist Baptist preacher literalist would then it would be 10' north into the street and 10' west into the large adjoiner property (who would gain 10' in the backyard of the 1928 parcel).
I know what my determination of the facts are (e.g. the fact of the boundary locations).
See you later...
Note: The actual deeds don't use the standard corner designators such as CN1/16 corner; they use the typical NE of the NEQ... etc which for the convenience of the reader I have simplified to the standard designators.
Look under the doctrine of "practical location." It's there, right next to "retracement," which is right next to "resurvey."
JBS
> If I plot the 1928 parcel right off the description like a Fundamentalist Baptist preacher literalist
LMAO, Thats funny!!!!!
> I know what my determination of the facts are (e.g. the fact of the boundary locations).
You know where the boundary is.;-)
I hate the fact that what seems to be a simple explanation of a scriveners error requires a thorough explanation and recreation of the big picture.....but I do love going above and beyond to recreate the big picture. That is where the quasi historian in me gets to really have some fun.
I agree, follow the footsteps of the original surveyor, not the footsteps of the original scrivener..
> Picture it, rural town in timber country, summer of 1928:
>
>
> If I plot the 1928 parcel right off the description like a Fundamentalist Baptist preacher literalist would then it would be 10' north into the street and 10' west into the large adjoiner property (who would gain 10' in the backyard of the 1928 parcel).
Gosh Dave, hitting within a 10'x10' based on a 1928 survey in a rural town in timber country sounds pretty good to me! 😉
DJJ
"No matter where you go.....there you are.
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. Typing class 9th grade!
I don't think it's a scrivener's error.
I think they often knew where the parcel is but they need to tie it to something so the Surveyor (name lost to history because they didn't often record these small time surveys but it could've been J.N. Lentell or another one named Paul Schmook but I'm not sure if Schmook was active in the 20s and 30s) cooked up a tie to some remote aliquot corner.
There is plenty of evidence of Surveying going on out there but it's not in the record. I don't personally think the 1930s Surveyor ever thought that we would take their cooked up remote ties exactly literally.
This doesn't mean you go measuring it out exact from that corner especially since you don't know what they used for that corner.
In some of the Deeds they actually say to use the corner as monumented by J.N. Lentell (per a big survey of several sections he did) but not in this one since Lentell didn't mark this 1/64th corner.
Yes, especially since they tied to a corner with no monument there.
I think "to find the point of beginning" is a subliminal message from the Deed scrivener.
It says start here, go to here then here then LOOK AROUND UNTIL YOU FIND THE P.O.B. which is 10' over there. AH HA! I found it!
This reminds me of a residential area subdivided in Anderson, CA.
30 or 40 lots all referenced the same point of commencement. Most of the descriptions are metes only, no bounds. Several do not close, and many do not come to the same common line as their adjoiners.
However it's been developed and fenced for 50 years.
I suppose one could determine which deeds are senior and which are junior and trace out each individual deed, then go through the actions of quieting title to all the gaps, overlaps and unwritten lines of possession..
Or, use a mathmatical best fit solution and then deal with the fences as unwritten rights and go through the process of clearing the titles.
Perhaps, re-plat with a new subdivision map??
Or, Gasp, just accept the fences as being the lines, record a map and probably never hear a word from anyone. Irregardless if I even really have that authority as a surveyor or not.
However, I chose none of the above.
Instead, I recommended the potential client to a surveyor I really don't care much for.
just kidding, it was tempting though.
"Or, Gasp, just accept the fences as being the lines, record a map and probably never hear a word from anyone. Irregardless if I even really have that authority as a surveyor or not."
I wouldn't just accept the fences but a solution that takes into account where the lots are actually located is best. If the lots were surveyed at the time of creation then the fences can be good evidence of the location of the original survey. What I see in these little towns is the occupational lines can be evidence of the lots being laid out by surveyors when they match odd angles and distances that wouldn't have easily been laid out by laymen. Suppose there are R/Ss that have found no record pipes that fit where you would expect them to be very close; this is an indication that some Surveyor laid out the town but didn't record anything.
So-called unwritten rights are not operative in these cases.
The owners of the lots have Deeds which are in writing.
The question of fact to be answered is "where are the lots located on the face of the earth?"
If you go out there and find the parcel is not exactly where the Deed indicates you probably haven't found the only lot not exactly positioned where the Deed indicates it might be. Plenty of section lines vary from exactly 80 chains; plenty of Lots are not exactly where the remote section corner tie indicates they are.
Dave,
Lots to consider, my work has just begun. Particularly since there is a disagreement between a couple of adjoiners as to one boundary location.
For that particular boundary, there is a 5' misclosure in one deed in the east-west direction. There are some pins set by a surveyor from the 1960's that agree with the location of the adjoiner's deed. The fence is off 7' in the north-south direction when compared to both deeds and the 1960's survey. And the point of commencement has been long destroyed, which is unfortunate as it was only 100' away.
When expanding the survey further out, to get an overall picture of teh neighborhood, it gets worse. Monuments of record, not of record, fences, and deeds and nothing even close to matching. Did I mention fences? On one side, there are evidence of 3 fence lines, one newer, one old and down, and another even older. None in agreement with anything.
Its jobs like this that make me want a new law in CA. Give the surveyor total authority. Not just an opinion. Take the planning departments and their costs out of the process of cleaning title through LLAs and PM's. Let the surveyor come in and have the final word, not just an opinion. Let the R/S provide clear title.
OK, back to earth.
My work has just begun on this one.
sounds like fun.
Actually it really is, in spite of the old growth river bottom blackberry that has consumed the fencelines.
Dave,
Good thread, I agree with all your above points. It's about history and evidence not numbers. Some days it seems measurements only cause trouble and should barred from the practice of surveying:)
Remember Wigmore? From Wigmore;’s compendium on “Evidence”, 2nd. Edition, Vol. 5 Section 2476:
“It is not necessary, and it is not humanly possible, for the symbols of description, which we call words, to describe in every detail the objects designated by the symbols. The notion that a description is a complete enumeration is an instinctive fallacy which must be got rid of before interpretation can be properly attempted. …”
The primary responsibility of the retracement surveyor is to identify errors in our land records and provide a means to correct those errors so that the legal boundaries will not be disturbed and the owners can stay out of court.
Richard Schaut
Well, butter my butt and call me a biscuit. I'm a fenceline surveyor.
I know of a county seat town where hundreds of tracts are described in similar fashion instead of there having been a plat made about 130 years ago. Those tracts are where they are. They are not precisely where a modern breakdown of the quarter section, mixed with the directions and dimensions all to even feet, would place the tract. One foolish young fellow took that approach and then told 19 property owners that none of their properties were where they thought they were.
There is a pseudo-subdivision down in Barstow (high desert town in San Bernardino County) which consists of 5 acre aliquots. There was a case where it appears the occupations all may shifted substantially from where the breakdown indicates they may be. A surveyor surveyed one and set the corners well into the occupation of the neighboring lot. The owner of the occupied lot didn't have any money and Barstow is about 10 hours from here so I never got down there to figure out what is going on. It could be an interesting case.