mattsib79, post: 394535, member: 1138 wrote: There are no sections. This is colonial. Gaps and overlaps are fairly common ummong patents. This is a little bit of an odd situation though. These patents were not issued in this area until 1873-1881.
That does seem late for the area. Around those same dates Verplanck Colvin found gores between original patents in surveying the Adirondacks in NY. One includes a State ski area aptly named "Gore Mountain". If there is value for public use the State will probably just thank you for pointing it out and keep it. If it has value for private ownership but not public use, they will probably want several assessments and probably an auction to let it go (under the circumstances you describe). Most likely Kentucky has a statute prescribing the legal steps for dealing with State lands of this nature.
From Kentucky statutes: "
56.210 Lands, how appropriated -- Disposition of proceeds.
Any person who wishes to appropriate any vacant and unappropriated land may, by
applying to the county judge/executive of the county in which the land lies, and paying
therefor a price fixed by the fiscal court at not less than five dollars ($5) per hundred
(100) acres, obtain an order authorizing him to enter and survey any number of acres of
such land in the county, not to exceed two hundred (200). The party obtaining the order
may, by an entry in the surveyor's book of the county, describing the land, appropriate the
quantity of land it calls for in one (1) or more parcels; but no one (1) person shall enter,
survey or cause to be patented more than two hundred (200) acres of land in any one (1)
county. The proceeds of the sale shall be paid into the county treasury.
Effective: June 17, 1978
History: Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 384, sec. 125, effective June 17, 1978. --
Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat.
secs. 4702, 4703. "
Monte, post: 394532, member: 11913 wrote: I cannot speak for lands outside of Texas, but in Texas, any unpatented lands found must first be offered to adjoining landowners, or those with a legitimate interest in the land. Off the top of my head, I cannot cite the exact wording of if it is unethical or if it is defined by statute as illegal for a land surveyor to make a claim on unpatented land, but I lean toward it being illegal. A conflict of interest I know is mentioned in the rules. Again, I cannot speak for other states, sharing for infotaiment only.
I don't think that word means what you think it means... At least in Texas. A LOT of the PSL land out in my primary area of practice is unpatented. That doesn't mean it doesn't have an owner. There is a big difference between land that is not patented and land that contains a vacancy. A good-faith claimant usually has first dibs on a vacancy, but if you offer unpatented land to the adjoiner, you're going to have a lot of upset landowners.
As to the OP, it would seem unethical to me to attempt to acquire the property.
jim.cox, post: 394547, member: 93 wrote: There was a certain kiwi surveyor who got himself into a little trouble when working for the then Department of Lands and Survey.
Some people came in to talk about selling a couple of very old and remote sections, still privately held, in the middle of one of our National Parks.
He bought them for himself - cost him his job and his reputation
Being a public official does have it's responsibilities. I assume that is what caused all the problems in your example.
The States i am licensed in prohibit using information gained in my employment to take unfair advantage of others. This may not be the driving force for the rule but it sure appears to fit...
thebionicman, post: 394621, member: 8136 wrote: The States i am licensed in prohibit using information gained in my employment to take unfair advantage of others. This may not be the driving force for the rule but it sure appears to fit...
I don't see an ethics problem. By finding it and patenting it the surveyor is helping the public by adding a previously unknown parcel to the tax rolls and increasing the tax base. the act of patenting it has no affect on the contractual agreement between surveyor and farmer. Unless of course the contract contains a fee for the surveyor to act as a real estate acquisitions fiduciary if any adjoining tracts are found to be available to add to the farm. The work necessary to patent it may be more costly than it's worth or more than the farmer wants to pay anyway. And it could take a lot of time and money and the patent not come through for one reason or another, in which case the farmer has spent a bunch of money and not got the land, in which case he will then certainly cry fraud and ethics violations. Or farmer takes info you gave him, doesn't like your fee, hires el cheapo down the road, thereby using surveyors special knowledge to gain without compensating surveyor. More I think about it....
paden cash, post: 394561, member: 20 wrote: A blanket formality at statehood since the Territory technically held some of the lands at one point in time. What would eventually become the BLM only maintained interests in mainly trust lands and eventually some spotty national forest area. Other things like unsettled homesteads that were never reconciled and surplus allotments that were never turned over to any native nation. Title can be a nightmare down here sometimes. Like I said some patents weren't actually issued until the thirties or forties on lands that were thought to be held by private native American members (allotments, not tribal sovereign soil). One branch of the US govt. said they gave it to them, but never REALLY did according to other branches.
I Guess I have a different perspective since Pennsylvania existed as a Sovereign Commonwealth before the United States came into being.
All except for the Erie Triangle. Connecticut had a claim, New York had color of title and Pennsylvania was entitled to a Port on Lake Erie. All 3 deeded their rights to the USA, and then the USA granted it back to PA. The eastern end of the Erie was established by the longitude at the western end of Lake Ontario (per New York's grant) which had to be located by going many miles into Canada. Connecticut had a claim that overlapped PA until the court resolved the latitude. New York's claim to land North of that latitude was superior to CT and CT continued West where New York stopped.
No Federal land in PA has a chain of title flowing from the US as Sovereign. The majority flowing from William Penn, his sons and lastly "The Commonwealth".
Other than the ambiguities in the Maryland, New York and Connecticut lines I know of no grants other than to Penn from the King of England for land in PA.
Almost all of PA was also covered by Quit Claim deeds from Native American residents, but not necessarily those actually residing on said land. The Iroquois sold a lot of the Delaware territory.
Paul in PA
Paul in PA, post: 394653, member: 236 wrote: I Guess I have a different perspective since Pennsylvania existed as a Sovereign Commonwealth before the United States came into being...
That is interesting and is quite a bit different. But we're pretty "new" down here, title doesn't get chased much earlier than the quit claim deed from Napoleon in 1803. 😉
For those that have not been through the Patent Process, I had an opportunity in assisting my father.
Farmer and brother in law each had adjoining patented parcels. Common? line had 2 overlaps and 1 gore The key to proving the gore was a corner call to a large pine tree. Having located everything else the burned out stump of a large tree was found within 7' of coordinates. Samples proved it was pine. Senior Farmer A has a straight line call and gets the overlaps, he is whole and says he does not claim the gore. Brother in law has a stair step line, says he is entitled to the gore to compensate for overlap loss, does not feel he should expend money. Developer's surveyor, buying both parcels, say it cannot be patented. My father files the claim with the Commonwealth, enough evidence is presented to show it is unpatented. Land is valuated. Commonwealth first offers land to State Game Commission as State Game lands abut both parcels to the northwest, they say no, land is not contiguous. (These days they may take it to make a later land swap for contiguous lands or land access.) Commonwealth issues a Warrant, land is surveyed, survey goes for review, then Patent is issued. Patent is then filed at County Court House and the land is now on the books with a tax ID. Developer now buys 3 parcels of land with clear title. While the process is more expensive than a normal; survey and sale, I would say it is less expensive than a boundary line lawsuit resolution. It is in every ones best interest to do it. My father felt more rewarded by actually doing it than in any financial gain. Most unclaimed land is in smaller parcels than in any Land deal size tracts. Some may never be claimed as I have seen parcels that are under man made lakes.
Paul in PA
Andy Nold, post: 394609, member: 7 wrote: I don't think that word means what you think it means... At least in Texas. A LOT of the PSL land out in my primary area of practice is unpatented. That doesn't mean it doesn't have an owner. There is a big difference between land that is not patented and land that contains a vacancy. A good-faith claimant usually has first dibs on a vacancy, but if you offer unpatented land to the adjoiner, you're going to have a lot of upset landowners.
I did mis-choose my words. I did mean vacancy, not unpatented. But having a piece of land without a patent leaves one open to potential problems in the future, problems that applying for a patent would head off.
