Since I misplaced my Wattles books, or someone else did, here is a quote from part of Wattles opinions on areas.
The E Half of a parcel has no definitely determined west line. ANY (emphasis by Wattles) line
dividing the parcel into equal areas can be construed as the line between halves regardless of the
shape of the lot.The intent of the deed description is not necessarily disclosed by the shape of the
parcel on the map.
The book that it is found in is called "Land Survey Descriptions". I would like to tell you what page it's on but the scan I recieved from a Beerlegger did not have the page number on it. A search for "Halves and Quarters" in the book should find the page though.
I knew I read that in Wattles..helped on my LSIT exam, or was it the LS exam. Hell, it's been a long time ago so it's really not important.
Wattles also says that when halves are mentioned in deeds it is specifically area halves unless a dimension in the deed says otherwise.
Edit: My Beerlegger buddy just sent me the reference
I found this in Section 212 at page 32 in Wattles Land Survey Descriptions.
Paul,
I think it all boils down to "it depends" ;-), despite what anyone has published.
CV
> Paul,
>
> I think it all boils down to "it depends" ;-), despite what anyone has published.
>
> CV
I agree 100%.
Does Not Apply To Alliquot Parts
One needs more to stray from the predefined dividing line.
Paul in PA
Does Not Apply To Alliquot Parts
I have a copy of that Wattle's book also (Frank Wattles?), but mainly keep it to have on my shelf. For some reason, I find it difficult to read. I much prefer Gurdon Wattles' Writing Legal Descriptions. However, to the point, Writing Legal Descriptions addresses it on pages 7.23 and 7.24 . He distinguishes between Public Lands/government rules, and private land. He agrees and cites a very interesting case where the dividing line actually had several jogs to include a tree in one "half". The jogged line prevailed in court.
Another note he makes is that the owner has a choice on how he wants to split his fractional portion of a PLSS area. I would think it would be best to describe it more clearly emphasizing the "area" division if you are dividing the former "government" section and not using the government rules. At least in our State, we have a state law that says that when the PLSS nomenclature is used, it shall be done by PLSS rules.
Does Not Apply To Alliquot Parts
Paul,
Now that you're in Texas, you'll want to know that unless the description specifically calls for area, a specific dimension or improvement, tree, body of water, etc. to hold, the way to halve a tract (if description calls for the East or West half) in this case is to halve the north and south boundary line dimensions and strike a line between the two points.
As others have said, intent here is king. But without specific language, that is the way to do it.
Does Not Apply To Alliquot Parts
> Paul,
>
> Now that you're in Texas.....
You're going to have to keep up, Glenn.
Paul's back in Cali
Does Not Apply To Alliquot Parts
You're right, I haven't been keeping up. Wow! Paul, drop me a line sometime.
how is it done in Texi?
I always wanted to know.
Does Not Apply To Alliquot Parts
> Now that you're in Texas, you'll want to know that unless the description specifically calls for area, a specific dimension or improvement, tree, body of water, etc. to hold, the way to halve a tract (if description calls for the East or West half) in this case is to halve the north and south boundary line dimensions and strike a line between the two points.
Glenn, there are two different Texas cases that come to mind on the subject. The case that W.C. Wilson was fond of quoting was Pruett v. Robison, in which what was at issue was how a description of a certain Southeast Half (as I recall) of a section oriented 27° off cardinal was to be constructed. One party was claiming that the half was to be a triangle severed by the diagonal of the section, the other for a rectangular half. In that case, however, the section in question was a perfect rectangle, at least in the evidence before the court and the field notes that were on file at the GLO as recently as 1985 (I haven't checked since). So the exact language by which the court described how the half was to be taken couldn't be distinguished from a half by area.
There is also the Texas Supreme Court case of Farley v. Deslonde in which the court held that the word "half" when applied to the league of land that was at issue in the case was exact as to area.
I consider the term "half" to have a customary acceptance that varies from place to place in Texas and depends upon the circumstances. When a series of half sections occurs along a boundary of a ranch, it isn't a stretch at all to think that the parties intended to create a boundary without a jog at every section line. When the more natural meaning of "half" as "one of two equal parts into which anything capable of division may be divided" is more equitable, then I believe that Texas law offers support for that construction.
Does Not Apply To Alliquot Parts-Kent
I don't disagree with what your saying. The construction that I described, was one touted by the former head of the GLO and other LSLSs (no I don't put them on a pedestal). IIRC, I had an analytical question on my RPLS exam to this extent.
.
You'll notice that I did say "intent is king". Therefore, I wouldn't put any construction out of the realm of possibility.
Does Not Apply To Alliquot Parts-Kent
> I don't disagree with what your saying. The construction that I described, was one touted by the former head of the GLO and other LSLSs (no I don't put them on a pedestal). IIRC, I had an analytical question on my RPLS exam to this extent.
Yes, that was the W.C. Wilson question. The late Mr. Wilson relied entirely upon Pruett v. Robison as the legal justification for the method of construction that disregarded the ordinary meaning of "half" as being one of two equal parts. I looked into Pruett v. Robison and, as I mentioned above, found that it actually offers no such broad rationale for always considering a half of a quadrilateral tract as being that part severed by a line drawn between midpoints of opposite sides. W.C.'s construction was merely what you could call the "West Texas Customary Half", but without any decision of a Texas court that I'm aware of to base it on.
I frankly think it is a sad commentary that the construction of a half has been used on the analytical problem without any basis other than that some West Texans think that how they've done things without thinking about it should apply universally across the state.
Does Not Apply To Alliquot Parts-Kent
> > W.C.'s construction was merely what you could call the "West Texas Customary Half", but without any decision of a Texas court that I'm aware of to base it on.
LOL.
> I frankly think it is a sad commentary that the construction of a half has been used on the analytical problem without any basis other than that some West Texans think that how they've done things without thinking about it should apply universally across the state.
True. Good info Kent, thanks for the background on that issue.
