An associate called me about surveying the West 60 acres of the southwest quarter of Section 33. Not a new deed but the line has never been run (fenced or occupied to any line). So he is the guy. His concern was due to a GLO completion survey there is quite a skew to the west section line. So the question was parallel to section line, average of north/south section line and quarter section line, or just North to include the 60 acres.
My opinion was to use North for the line but run it by the landowners first to see if they are OK with it.
What do others think?
BTW other deed reads SW1/4 less the West 60 acres.
Plenty of conveyances down here written in that manner. Usually it is the retracement that indicates evidence to clarify the location or course of the line.
But given the choice I would probably use a median bearing between the west line and the east line of the SW/4.
Wow...I'm not sure, but my immediate reaction would be to skew the line to be parallel to the skew of the Section line. Do you make it be exactly 60 acres, or do you make it be the proportional 60 acres compared to the original survey measurements? I would suggest trying to adjust the line to be a "real" 60 acres.
I'm going to watch this thread to see what some real experts say, because I'm just answering to what makes sense to me.
LRDay, post: 405625, member: 571 wrote: surveying the West 60 acres of the southwest quarter of Section 33
The Easterly boundary of the parcel should be parallel with the West line of the SW 1/4 regardless of its orientation. 😎
60.000 acres.
East line to be parallel to the west section line.
But since the line is not established the property owners can issue different instructions to the land surveyor, within reason.
Why not sketch both options and sit down with both effected owners?
If you come up with a solution and impose it, there will always be doubt. Sit the owners down and extract the solution they prefer. Memorialize it and be done. Anything less is kicking the can down the road.
Oh, don't forget to get PAID.
thebionicman, post: 405637, member: 8136 wrote: Why not sketch both options and sit down with both effected owners?
If you come up with a solution and impose it, there will always be doubt. Sit the owners down and extract the solution they prefer. Memorialize it and be done. Anything less is kicking the can down the road.
Oh, don't forget to get PAID.
That's why I said to run it by the landowners.
LRDay, post: 405639, member: 571 wrote: That's why I said to run it by the landowners.
Wasn't picking on you. Just making my point with a bit of emphasis. Us Utah guys have to stick together..;^)
LRDay, post: 405625, member: 571 wrote: run it by the landowners first to see if they are OK with it.
There are several variables to an ambiguous description like this. Make sure the landowners are aware of all of the implications. Without knowing the intent of the original subdivider; you pretty much have an open slate with which to work.
Why not run it on a zig-zag? Some lines parallel, some lines north, and some lines on a median bearing. Make it look like a fence might have been there. This is your chance to be creative. Make sure to vary the lengths of the lines. :p
RADAR, post: 405643, member: 413 wrote: There are several variables to an ambiguous description like this
Are you addressing ÛÏambiguitiesÛ as in the field evidence recovered?
In my humble opinion there are absolutely no ambiguities in the description. ItÛªs actually a perfect description with respect to intent.
Just saying 🙂
FL/GA PLS., post: 405651, member: 379 wrote: In my humble opinion there are absolutely no ambiguities in the description.
Kent McMillan, post: 405648, member: 3 wrote: obviously.
To you and I; and maybe Kent, it's obvious. to someone who's oblivious to the art of surveying; it could be just about anything...
LRDay, post: 405625, member: 571 wrote: An associate called me about surveying the West 60 acres of the southwest quarter of Section 33. Not a new deed but the line has never been run (fenced or occupied to any line). So he is the guy. His concern was due to a GLO completion survey there is quite a skew to the west section line. So the question was parallel to section line, average of north/south section line and quarter section line, or just North to include the 60 acres.
My opinion was to use North for the line but run it by the landowners first to see if they are OK with it.
What do others think?
BTW other deed reads SW1/4 less the West 60 acres.
What??? Then what the hell do we have all these laws and rules for if we can't step out there and say this is where the line is???? That's the most asinine thing I've ever read regarding surveying. I'm not saying landowners have no rights, but if the line has never been on the ground, then who the hell else is going to put it on the ground?
Kris Morgan, post: 405656, member: 29 wrote: then who the hell else is going to put it on the ground?
The original subdivider...
Kris Morgan, post: 405656, member: 29 wrote: What??? Then what the hell do we have all these laws and rules for if we can't step out there and say this is where the line is???? That's the most asinine thing I've ever read regarding surveying. I'm not saying landowners have no rights, but if the line has never been on the ground, then who the hell else is going to put it on the ground?
Good. I'm glad we're getting some intelligent positive feedback on where the line belongs.
My first thought was that the deed possibly intended a "nominal 60 acres", as in run the east line of the parcel between 1/256th corners. I'd be digging a little deeper...
BajaOR, post: 405662, member: 9139 wrote: My first thought was that the deed possibly intended a "nominal 60 acres", as in run the east line of the parcel between 1/256th corners. I'd be digging a little deeper...
That's why the description is ambiguous. It is correct if they intended to grant 60 acres, but if they wanted to grant a proportional area, they should have worded it more in the aliquot nomenclature like the W1/2 of the W1/2 of the W1/2 (however many you need)......of the section.
Since it has never been staked, it would make sense to me for the property to have 60 acres (the literal interpretation of the description). It's always hard to explain why the W 60 acres does not equal anywhere near 60 acres.
I'm with BajaOR on this one. If there is an opportunity to establish the line on the W 60 according to govt survey take it. That is the highest probability of the intent and also likely the way the W 60 and E 100 have been assessed.
LRDay, post: 405625, member: 571 wrote: An associate called me about surveying the West 60 acres of the southwest quarter of Section 33.
Did he tell you what the adjoiner's deed said? There's probably a BIG clue there.
I am in absolute awe with this post. But then again I am aging Surveyor (and damn proud of it!), so perhaps I no longer understand what the West line of the SW å? is anymore, the North and South å? section lines play an important part in the description but the East line of the parcel MUST be parallel to the West line.
