John Doe secures a federal patent to Fractional Section 30 in 1906, which borders a 20,000-acre lake, that was meandered by 10 various GLO surveyors between 1806 and 1880, and the meander lines all matched reality very well. All GLO plats were approved by the Surveyor General, and all GLO surveyors were paid. Their meanders matched a contour line very closely. The acreage in the fractional section is 47 acres (very small fractional section). John Doe alleges that the meander lines are actually about 3.2 miles from the real edge of the lake, and he claims the land between the lake and the meander, which would give him more than 3,400 acres over and above his 47 acres.
For purpose of discussion, let's assume that John Doe is correct--that the edge of the lake is in fact 3.2 miles away from the meander of his 47 acres, and that all the GLO surveyors and the Surveyor General were on drugs from 1806 to 1880.
THE QUESTION: Would you think that John Doe should be able to project his property lateral property lines line for 3.2 miles out to the edge of the lake (assuming that the lake is not where GLO said it was, and is in fact 3.2 miles away.)
Shoot. 🙂
My answer would be no. It seems like I've read that the original lines hold except in cases of fraud or gross error. This would be gross error.
I wonder if something like an Absurd Result Principle would come into play. https://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/44/dougherty.pdf
I'm making a lot of assumptions to fill in the gaps here, but I vote no. See Jeems Bayou Fishing and Hunting Club v. United States on page 264 of the 09 Manual. 3.2 miles is more than enough to constitute an erroneous meander. The Feds would likely contend that there remains unsurveyed public lands between the original meander line(s) and the current OHWM.
The landowner can try anything he or she wants, but it may not work. Possession is not 9/10 of the law against original govt land.
How can a fractional section ever exceed what would have been possible with a full section?
Are we to assume this John Doe is now more than 130 years old?
Paul in PA
Sorry, the John Doe here is the great grandbaby of Big John.
Is the lake really 3.2 miles from the surveyed line? Seems like something easy to verify even with google maps.
If the water has relicted 3.2 miles his property lines would extend to the current water, but would probably not be "protracted" as straight lines.
If the water line was always about 3.2 miles away the last official meander line before the patent would be fixed and limiting (gross error or fraud).
Paul in PA, post: 434307, member: 236 wrote: How can a fractional section ever exceed what would have been possible with a full section?
Are we to assume this John Doe is now more than 130 years old?
Paul in PA
If there is enough reliction or accretion the area would exceede 640 acres. It's not that uncommon for that to happen (about the same probability of a fractional section eroding away to nothing).
In the particular state, there is no right to reliction or accretion in the lake.
Can you provide additional information, perhaps with how the adjoiners and your clients deeds are described in the area in conflict? (a lat/lon would be fun just for kicks) I can see where a crafty attorney could argue to the meander as measured BUT, I could also see the opposing argument more clearly, the land conveyed was intended to be solely in fractional section 30 (if thats how the deeds read). I'd get the original notes from the 10 various GLO Surveys, 3.2 miles smells like a fraudulent footprint that you are retracing if all 10 GLO surveys agree over the course of 74 years, the next step, at least I'd take is hitting the local library and historical society and looking into historical events post 1880 that could have caused mass sudden erosion, although 3.2 miles is a bit. Good luck!
It seems really unlikely that several different GLO surveyors would all perpetuate the same mistaken meander line. Reliction is much more likely.
In a PLSS state I would wonder whether the relicted rights would extend beyond the protracted sectional boundary. This is Louisiana, so I don't know.
Mark Mayer, post: 434337, member: 424 wrote: It seems really unlikely that several different GLO surveyors would all perpetuate the same mistaken meander line. Reliction is much more likely.
Perhaps, without the research its hard to tell, but you have to toss around the notion that 3 miles of slow sediment movement occurred in 130 years. More research is needed.
It jumps out as odd to me that 10 GLO surveyors would meander the same lake within 74 years, especially one that large. Why would they do that? Even today, when meanders are much easier to survey, BLM often declines to resurvey meanders of the riparian boundary when doing a dependent resurvey.
FrozenNorth, post: 434341, member: 10219 wrote: It jumps out as odd to me that 10 GLO surveyors would meander the same lake within 74 years, especially one that large. Why would they do that? Even today, when meanders are much easier to survey, BLM often declines to resurvey meanders of the riparian boundary when doing a dependent resurvey.
My thoughts exactly
Frank Willis, post: 434334, member: 472 wrote: In the particular state, there is no right to reliction or accretion in the lake.
I don't know anything about Louisiana, how does that work? And if that is true the boundary can't possibly be the current water line. It was either fixed because the original meander was fraudulent, or fixed because the upland owner can't claim the reliction.
BK9196, post: 434343, member: 12217 wrote: My thoughts exactly
most likely people fighting over duck hunting rights.
BK9196, post: 434343, member: 12217 wrote: My thoughts exactly
most likely land owners fighting with the public over duck hunting.
FrozenNorth, post: 434341, member: 10219 wrote: It jumps out as odd to me that 10 GLO surveyors would meander the same lake within 74 years, especially one that large. Why would they do that? Even today, when meanders are much easier to survey, BLM often declines to resurvey meanders of the riparian boundary when doing a dependent resurvey.
Most likely land owners fighting with the public over duck hunting rights.
All the GLO surveyors did not meander the lake in same part of the lake. Lake is so big that it occupied parts of 6 townships. The meanders lined up very well at township intersects and contours. Our natural lakes in Louisiana have large natural water level variations, and many of them get very shallow in the summer, causing the edge of the water to change drastically with only a minor change in stage--like 1500 feet per foot of stage change. This post is not intended to be about that but rather the question as to would it be reasonable to extend the lateral lines of a tract of land that to get to a natural monument that far away. The concept probably would have been better portrayed if I used the Great Salt Lake as an example, where I believe a one inch stage change can shift water's edge 12 miles.
