UPDATE to year old thread double 1/4 corner thread

> So what should a surveyor do?

What JB Stahl said

> All said, however, it's still going to be up to the two landowners to decide what they want to do to fix the issue. Do they want to move their boundary (adjustment), or do they want to move their fence, or do they want to continue living with the knowledge that their fence isn't on the boundary. In either case, the surveyor can provide the necessary documentation.
JBS

Or maybe what Richard Schaut Said

> Using the tract segregation and document reformation process refered to in Chap 6 of the '73 manual as a guide, but following your state laws; keep the legal boundaries as fixed by the occupation lines, and correct the inaccurate description.
Richard Schaut

😉

Dugger

one caveat: I have a hard time with: It's the aliquot line because that's what the owners want it to be, train of thought. If you, as a surveyor, know that it is not, then it isn't. The owners can own whatever thay want, but they shouldn't be able to call it the aliquot line if it isn't.

I have seen double corners because the development had gone beyond fixing and recognizing one location worked well and fit occupation lines on one side of the line, another location did the same for the other. Why it happened I don't know but doing it that way maintains harmony between owners and no harm was done to any landowner. Could be a problem for a surveyor who didn't know because of poor or no research. This is a recording state so the survey record is there to see, at least from 1947.
jud

Your comment:

"one caveat: I have a hard time with: It's the aliquot line because that's what the owners want it to be, train of thought. If you, as a surveyor, know that it is not, then it isn't. The owners can own whatever thay want, but they shouldn't be able to call it the aliquot line if it isn't."

This is where the surveyor's judgement comes in.

In my opinion, the technician will identify the aliquot part line at the measured distances as shown on the original plat.

The land surveyor will identify the aliquot part line according to the best available evidence on the ground.

That evidence will include prior survey evidence, prior land owner's determinations, and available testimony from land owners who have a knowledge of the boundaries and when they were determined.

This entire argument is showing the difference in what I call the technician concepts and the land surveyor concepts.

As you have read many times on my posts, I cannot go along with the Robillard-Bouman concept where the section subdivision lines can only be surveyed at the mathematical positions as shown on the original GLO survey plat, rather then accepting evidence on the ground of those section subdivision lines.

I intend to have a definite opinion on this concept from BLM and will provide that opinion on some survey boards. It is taking a little more time than I anticipated, but it will be forthcoming as BLM survey managers do realize the problem.

Keith

I been reviewing Utah law on this. I'm 99% convinced at this point that the boundary has been established by acquiescence along the old fence. All 4 elements required by law have been met. The fact that there was a mistake is irrelevant at this date. Utah policy is one of repose. The requirement for uncertainty of the boundary location has been removed from boundary by acquiescence in Utah. In fact Utah law allows for acquiescence even if a party knows where the boundary is if they for the 20 year period treat the occupied line as a boundary and raise no objections. I'm not going to call the fence the quarter section line, just the boundary (but it is the boundary according to the original description and the boundary by acquiescence). That's the hard part for many surveyors to get their heads around but it is the law. I'll put some extra effort into the narrative on the plat explaining (and citing the law) this.

I know this is hard to swallow by most surveyors (including me) but the law is the law and we should apply the law. Also this doesn't change the description or convey any real estate. It just fixes the boundary where it is. I do have to deal with the descriptions as the owners want to spit the parcel in two. I'm considering just splitting the original description into a north of and a south of the east/west line they want. So I'm not going to change the original description. I'll add a reference in the descriptions to the filed survey plat (if you really want to know the details look at this survey). My survey plat will show the boundary dimensions in detail and explain the determination of acquiescence. Unless someone can convince me otherwise there will be no as-surveyed description written other than the new split line (which will be monumented) and tied to the existing brass cap GLO markers.

I'm anticipating some blow back from the system like an objection to the boundary by acquiescence from public officials or even maybe a title company but I'm prepared to explain and defend the law. I'm considering getting affidavits that will be recorded that the adjoining landowners have reviewed and accept the determination of the boundary shown by the filed survey plat.

I would probably agree with you 100 percent.........if it wasn't for that original corner monument that is not in line with the fence.

I just don't see how this scenario can be simply called a mistake?

It was in fact a mistake and can be corrected and will leave the 1/4 sec. cor. as the legal corner for the rest of the subdivisions.

I will not question your research and your belief that the Utah law will support your opinion, but I do question if there is a court case that is on point with this problem.

I am all in favor of accepting fence lines and especially in your case here,.....but and it is a big BUT, corner monuments mean things.

Keith

The quarter section corner not used for this line will remain. In fact I filed a corner record on it last year. That quarter section corner should be used to establish any aliquot lines not already established that depend on it. In fact I'm going to use it for some other parts of my boundary determination.

> one caveat: I have a hard time with: It's the aliquot line because that's what the owners want it to be, train of thought. If you, as a surveyor, know that it is not, then it isn't. The owners can own whatever thay want, but they shouldn't be able to call it the aliquot line if it isn't.

I asked this very question when I was taking a course from a land surveyor/lawyer who explained acquiescence to us. I asked that if they both acquiesce to an aliquot line position, and agree to it, is it the aliquot corner for everybody involved? He said it doesn't change their description, and it is the aliquot corner "for them". This might be a case where one corner position might pertain to some landowners, and the other corner position might be the correct one for others. The original description still prevails (doesn't change) in agreement/acquiescence cases.

I have heard another surveyor who is quite well-respected around here as referring to a corner that may not be in the original position but having been used by many surveys and ownerships as the "corner of common report" or something to that effect. Original stone over here, corner of common report over there.

I say distinguish the corner you are using by describing the monument well and making any other calls you can to clarify which monument you are at.

adamsurveyor,

The argument comes up many times and I recently heard it in a State Board hearing, that the surveyor has to survey the section subdivision lines as they are protracted on the original survey plat in order that landowners in the section will have the "right" subdivision of section corners.

In other words, ignore the lines on the ground that have been accepted for years as the boundaries between their aliquot part descriptions and establish new ones where they are supposed to be!

The argument being that if these fence corners are accepted and out of position of the protracted lines, then the other land owners are forced to accept that boundary and subd. of sec. cor. as well.

I happen to believe that it is better to have all landowners in the section, to have common corners from which their boundaries are determined. Isn't the alternative unacceptable, as the land owners would then each have their own "determined" boundary with the consequence of having gaps and overlaps all over the section.

What is the difference in concept between that scenario and an example of a 1/4 sec. cor. monument on the sec. line that is lost and the land owners bordering it have determined where it is now. Not everybody in the section may agree with that position.

The concept remains that common boundaries remain common.

It is especially egregious for a surveyor to come into a section now and ignore all the common accepted boundaries that have been in place for many years.......and set new subd. of sec. corners where they are shown to be on the protracted lines of the original survey plat.

Once again, look at the problem as shown by Frank Willis in Louisiana in a recent thread.

Keith:

Completely agree. I might show parenthetical original distances as shown on the GLO plats, but the measurements (both historical and current) are only evidence, and the most compelling evidence is what's on the ground for all to see. Then the next would be the parties understanding of that. The measurements are supporting evidence.

As JB, Jeff Lucas, et.al. all continue to preach:

Retracement is an evidentiary exercise, not a mathematical one.

Why does this seem to be so hard?

Thanks for your comments Marc and I do wonder why it is so hard to tell the difference between original surveying and retracement surveying?

Idaho Board case?

Whatever happened to that Idaho State Board case that was dealing with similar issues. There was a determination by the Board recently wasn't there? Where can one find any information about that case? What was the outcome?

Idaho Board case?

No outcome. It's under appeal.

JBS

Idaho Board case?

Send me an email if you are curious about the Idaho case.

Keith,
There could be an original section/aliquot corner in the ground, and other parcels may have been established from it. In a case of acquiescence, there could be a historical fence for many years between two properties, and it could have been determined to have become the property line by virtue of acquiescence.

The concept is, that if they own aliquot portions of land, or if they have a description as that section corner being the controlling corner, the acquiescence does not change. No land is transferred. So when retracing that boundary, the "section corner" they have to come off of is the acquiesced-to corner.

However, if someone is retracing another boundary that goes to the original section corner, they have to use the original monument.

An example might be that two landowners north of the section line have a fence going north from the "wrong" S-¼ Corner, and that fence is proven in court as having ripened by aquiescence.

Now there might be two land owners to the South whose N-¼ Corner is the common corner to the other S-¼ Corner; but they have had a proper survey done, and are using the original ¼-corner. The original corner holds for them, but the owners to the north have a different location by virtue of acquiescence. No land changes hands between them, the deed-descriptions stay the same, they don't have to go through county requirements for a boundary adjustment line. There are two ¼-corners.

Just because two parties have acquiesced to their common line, doesn't mean that the corner "moves" for every other property involved.

I agree it is nicest to have only one corner for every section corner, but, after the section has gone to private ownership, there are many things that can happen to it.

Tom

I've given this some thought. I agree with Keith's post.

There has to be a difference between a monument "known" as the aliquot corner and a monument "mistaken" as the aliquot corner. I was trying to figure out why I was in favor of accepting the junior monument even when the senior had been discovered after some time and why this one made me uneasy. What it comes down to is that in the junior monument scenario it was set and known as the corner for which it was intended and this one isn't.

LR's arguements are compelling and make me pause. Not including uncertainty in acquiescence is a new concept I have never heard of or considered. It just strikes me as too far off the traditional understanding of it for me to buy into it. As Keith, I would have to see some particular rulings or law for buy in which I assume LR has done plenty of. Ain't surveying fun? It is when you aren't the guy on the ground involved in it.

If the owners want the fence as the boundary I think I would have suggested that the area between the monument line and the fence be quit claimed to solve this one.

Here's a case from Arkansas that is very similar.

Thurkill v Wood
I linked to this case in the old thread.

Tom,

Thanks for taking the time to post your opinions, even though I will disagree with some.

The basic premise that I disagree with, and maybe you did not express it, is that some will argue that only the subd. of sec. lines that are surveyed on the ground at the exact proportions as the original plat are legal and all other lines are simply "property lines". You can study the Robillard-Bouman for that concept.

If in fact all landowners in the section have their own agreed to lines, then chaos breaks out and everybody is left wondering what the heck is going on.

I believe as I posted before that if in fact a fence line is the agreed to boundary, but the existing 1/4 sec. cor. that is supposed to be the controlling corner is ignored, then that fence line should be a metes and bounds boundary and not the original aliquot part description. That preserves the existing monument to be used properly by others in the same section.

But, of course the main point of our disagreement is that I believe that even though a fence line is the accepted boundary between two aliquot part descriptions, AND THE CONTROLLING PLSS CORNERS ARE NOT IN EXISTENCE, then the line can be and should be accepted as the controlling aliquot part division line.....that is, if in reason and not 5 chains out of position.

The concept being that each land owner does not have their own accepted boundary wherever they may want them, and each landowner can be satisfied that his/her boundaries are safe and that a young whipplesnapper surveyor does not enter the area and screw it all up by using the latest and greatest measuring device and his/her mathematical skills!

Several years ago, somebody posted a survey plat of a section in Arkansas and each 40 acre aliquot part had it's own boundary line at 20 chains square and no common boundaries. That was a little different scenario than described above, but shows the ineptness of some surveyors.

I think the bottom line for me anyway, is if a legitimate 1/4 sec. cor. monument is in existence, and an accepted fence does not line up with that monument, then it is no longer described as an aliquot part.

Keith

I'd say that's pretty much right on point. With as many cases as are out there, it's difficult to find one that perfectly fits the fact situation. That one's pretty darn close.

JBS

I Put that one in the hard file. That's a good one. Thank you. LR is on solid ground according to that opinion.