Typical Utah mountain subdivision from the 70's.

> The parcel is an aliquot 40 acre parcel that belongs to a public school district. They acquired it in 1972...The school district is a public entity (a sovereign). The school district held title before the private subdivision was surveyed.

I don't see how the school district has rights that are different from any other landowner. It sounds like they acquired the property by purchase rather than by creation of a sovereign state. Unless Utah law differs from California law in this regard, I'd treat the district the same as anyone else.

Who did the school district acquire the land from in 1972, was it acquired from a private individual or the feds? When were the boundaries created?

I asked the same question. Don't have the facts yet.

I was able to go online in Utah County (a great free land records site) and get the deed. The parcel was owned by private owners before the school district acquired it in 1972. The subdivision survey and plat was recorded in 1979. So boundary establishment before 1972 would apply but what about after 1972 when the school district owned it. For boundary establishment is this parcel since 1972 a public parcel or a private parcel? There are no visible lines like fences to acquiesce too but there are boundary marks from the subdivision survey. Is a public school district subject to acquiescence during the time they own the property?

The BLM survey defines federal land and the remaining issues are state jurisprudence and the facts. Junior senior rights, acquiescence on the surveyed subdivision boundaries are all that make it fun for you. Gather the facts and go forth.

Pablo B-)

> The BLM survey defines federal land and the remaining issues are state jurisprudence and the facts. Junior senior rights, acquiescence on the surveyed subdivision boundaries are all that make it fun for you. Gather the facts and go forth.

I think that Leon probably also needs to research Utah case law to see whether the State of Utah and its political subdivisions (which include school districts) have been held to be immune to the equitable theories that I'm going to guess he wants to rely upon.

The survey that established the original line between the two parcels. If the subdivision survey is the best available evidence of a retracement of the original it should be held, even if there is some conflicting evidence. If the subdivision survey is the original, it should be held. States or their political subdivisions are generally held to the same rules of contract interpretation as citizens of the state. If the subdivision survey is not the line, then unwritten agreement or other equitable rules probably are not applicable. Generally school districts hold in a sovereign capacity rather than proprietary, unless they do something to change that (such as put part of the property up for sale).

Here is a Utah Statute:

U.C.a: 78B-2-216

Need to do further research whether the parcel has been designated as a public use.

> Need to do further research whether the parcel has been designated as a public use.

The code section says that it applies if the land is designated for a public use *and* is held by a government entity. It defines government entity as "a town, city, county, or metropolitan water district." No mention of school districts.

Is there another code section that deals with schools?

Time not runneth against the King, even with the King argues with the King. Use the '72 line.

I believe a public school district is part of the "state". That's where all the funding comes from. I'll research further. I think the real question is whether the parcel has been designated for public use and maybe when.

Seems the expert measurement is the easy part. Two alternative lines located, marked and with a public record. Determining the relevant facts and the applying the law is not so easy. Even then it's only your opinion. I'm recommending that my friend advise the school district of the issues and then let the district decide how to proceed (maybe seek and agreement with the adjoiners). Provide what ever assistance you can. I wouldn't file any survey (declaring either line as the boundary) until it's been sorted out between the landowners. Hopefully this ain't headed to court.

I found out the parcel is used by the school like a summer camp and for outings and field trips for the students. They keep the gates locked and you need permission to enter. I don't think this is a "designated public use" like a roadway or park. They are probably subject to adverse possession and acquiescence like any other private landowner.

If it's a public school, then it is almost certainly covered under the statute as a government entity. I think the use would be considered public as well. But I don't think those issues would be reached. The BLM survey is for the sole purpose of finding the Federal oversight lands retained by the public. Those federal public lands are the only parcels that are not subject to the laws of original marking and retracement.

I understand why you are approaching it this way. But it seems like most times giving landowners an opportunity to agree more often turns out to have given them a reason to argue.

If you consider the subdivision survey of 78-79 the original survey to breakdown the section then that would control. This is prior the the BLM section breakdown by 5 years. Some would only accept the original GLO survey (about 1903) as the only original survey and then the BLM's proper survey of 1984 as the only proper retracement.

So this probably goes both ways, the BLM survey along the boundary with the US and the subdivision survey for that boundary. I suppose after 34 years it's a little late to complain about the bad procedures of the 78-79 subdivision boundary survey.

So most would give up the overlap but how many would claim the gap between the BLM breakdown and the sub boundary survey?

I still think that some sort of documentation and agreement is in order to clear up future conflicts. Considering the wide range of opinions on these things from a whole host of different parties (landowners, surveyors, public officials, title companies, etc.) Who knows that someone won't kick a sleeping dog down the line?

> I still think that some sort of documentation and agreement is in order to clear up future conflicts. Considering the wide range of opinions on these things from a whole host of different parties (landowners, surveyors, public officials, title companies, etc.) Who knows that someone won't kick a sleeping dog down the line?

You have hit the proverbial nail upside the head:
Now, just get all parties involved to sign your friend's survey and you're good!:clap:

I agree an agreement would be beneficial, but I wouldn't be scared to make a map showing my opinion first. But then I probably wouldn't show anything to disagree about in this case. Is the BLM claiming their 1984 survey controls all the lands in the section? If so, I might have to rethink. I'm assuming their policy of monumenting the "proper" breakdown is only so that their own parcel can be retraced in the future.

If I understand correctly, the GLO established the limits of the section in 1903. So, the section boundaries after that would be retracement work. Subdivision of the section after 1903, as patents were issued, would be original survey work, then retracement of same. Reasonable locations per original breakdown, even if not precisely by prescribed methods, would hold for all parties except lands retained by the government. Seems like there would have been surveys marking these lines sometime between 1903 and 1978, especially because of the relatively slight differences between the subdivision and the BLM, but maybe not.

If it was a mistaken line in 1978, then the school district could benefit but not lose land.

Interesting situation, good luck.

The BLM doesn't make claims that their surveys control all private lands, just the federal interests. But that doesn't stop private owners from using the government markers to tune up their boundaries especially when to their advantage.

This is not an uncommon situation that boundaries got disjointed from the original survey. It was just to much expense and effort for many to get a proper survey. Some rural areas didn't even have access to real surveyors. DIY was very common. I've worked in some developments where we could find almost every original stone if we looked but the original subdividers in the 70's and 80's had found maybe one out of five. So folks and surveyors are all over the map on what they do when these things come to light.

Of coarse the courts been dealing with these sort of things for hundreds of years. What's new is surveyors getting on board, going beyond just being the ones with the measurement technology and expertise. So it's a two edged sword, we have the ability to measure quickly and easily, go across vast distances without hacking through through the woods, instant readout of the numbers on a computer screen. It can be hard to accept something not on the coordinate or in plain sight but not in the description, ignore the mathematical readout that cost you tens of thousands of dollars. The temptation to be the first guy to get it right and prove everyone else wrong is very great. What's the next generation going to do, take it sub millimeter?

So now we have the ultimate mapping tool, GIS. Instant aerial photos and access to vast database info. Still the same old problem, society doesn't want to spend the money to get the data right and even worse to pay to have the law applied to the data, it's not instantaneous or cheap. Our technology can solve or create problems.

UPDATE - Utah mountain subdivision

I consulted another friend and true boundary expert. A two hour phone conversation.

The aliquot markers that the BLM rejected where from 1953. They are mostly still in the ground. It appears that the improper procedure was proportioning without finding original corners. In 1975 during a remonumentation survey the BLM found some but no all of the corners for the section. The 1953 surveyor had not. In 1972 the parcel was sold to the school district by private landowners. At that time the 1953 corners where in the ground. The subdivision was surveyed in 1978 and recorded in 1979. The subdivision surveyors in 1978 found the 1953 corners and used them but didn't find the 1975 remonumentation corners done by the BLM. Then in 1984 the BLM did a dependent survey and proportioned the quarter corners of the section from their found original corners. The BLM noted the 1953 corners which they tied out and rejected for improper procedures. So the BLM survey certainly holds for the boundary with the United States land.

That still leaves open the question of the boundary between the school district and the subdivision. Do you hold the BLM survey or the 1953 survey (with improper procedure)? A further investigation into the land ownership reveals that the the parties that sold to the school district are also included on a long list if signers of the subdivision plat. So it appears there was clear intent and reliance on the 1953 survey as the boundaries of the subdivision plat and the aliquot 40. The landowners that created the boundary line between the 40 and the sub plat relied upon and used the 1953 survey. Some further investigation needs to be done but this resolves both the overlap and gap of the aliquot 40 per the BLM survey and the subdivision plat. Neither exist as the boundaries conveyed to the school district and the sub plat are the boundaries from the 1953 (improper procedure) survey. It all goes away, just needs a proper explanation and documentation by the surveyor.

It's sure good to have great friends in the survey business and as a bonus I learned something for the day. Any day when I learn something new is a great day!