FL/GA PLS., post: 405677, member: 379 wrote: 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
It's a matter of whether you are doing a proportional determine, or if you are holding 60 acres and making the line parallel to the west line. An easier way to describe it is, if you were calling to the NW40 Acres of a section is it the NW1/4 NW1/4, or is it 40 acres exactly?
Similarly, Is this one the W1/2 W1/2 W1/2 of the section (which would not be parallel), or the W60 Acres (which would be parallel but not aliquot)
FL/GA PLS., post: 405677, member: 379 wrote: 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.
Why?
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?
IF there are multiple options why not let the landowners decide. Another option is a boundary line agreement to establish the line in an alternate location or fix an uncertain one.
Tom Adams, post: 405680, member: 7285 wrote: It's a matter of whether you are doing a proportional determine, or if you are holding 60 acres and making the line parallel to the west line. An easier way to describe it is, if you were calling to the NW40 Acres of a section is it the NW1/4 NW1/4, or is it 40 acres exactly?
Similarly, Is this one the W1/2 W1/2 W1/2 of the section (which would not be parallel), or the W60 Acres (which would be parallel but not aliquot)
The West 3/8 of the SW 1/4 would be sort of a bastard PLSS aliquot part. Wouldn't be exactly 60 acres though.
If the landowners are not involved and accept the solution, better research the law and find where this has been addressed before.
Another alternative in Utah is just do what you think is best. If the landowners then fence it that way and treat the fences as the boundary for 20+ years the line would be established by acquiescence.
When was the description first used? When was the completion survey done? How does one know the east line of the 60 acres has never been run if one hasn't searched all the possible locations for the line? It's true that the language in the deeds is clear (60 acres & SW/4 minus 60 acres) but are we to just jump on the easy answer and ignore the other possibilities we know can exist?
paden cash, post: 405683, member: 20 wrote: Why?
It's in:
"Writing Legal Descriptions Fourth Edition
by Gurdon H. Wattles"
and slightly mentioned in BLM instructions.
I'm too lazy to look up quotes, so, I may be wrong. Happy Holidays Brother!
BajaOR, post: 405687, member: 9139 wrote: When was the description first used? When was the completion survey done? How does one know the east line of the 60 acres has never been run if one hasn't searched all the possible locations for the line? It's true that the language in the deeds is clear (60 acres & SW/4 minus 60 acres) but are we to just jump on the easy answer and ignore the other possibilities we know can exist?
I don't have all the fine details. The completion survey was 1922. There is about 165 feet East/West difference SW cor to W 1/4 cor. North/South quarter section line is near North. I'll call and get the township and range, maybe post it here. The deed (original conveyance) is not recent. The line has not ever been established on the ground. I think this is just low value range land.
LRDay, post: 405686, member: 571 wrote: the line would be established by acquiescence.
Well of course it would; that's obvious!
Except that they wouldn't acquiesce to it until someone said something....but it's there for the taking.
Awesome! How do I do that? Well, the first thing you do is you go out and retain an attorney...Wait! How much is that going to cost? And in the last 20 years the properties have changed hands a few times; now Mr. Jerkface owns the the property on the other side of the line and he says he's going to fight it all the way to the supreme court; if he has to. Do I still get to acquiesce to it?
How long has it been described as the west 60 acres? Couldn't they acquiesce to that too, if it was over 20 years?
Does the adjoining deed say the east 100 acres? Which deed is senior?
It's pretty obvious that the deed says "The West 60 Acres of the SW 1/4". That's a no-brainier; you define the SW 1/4 then slide the west line east until you have exactly 60 acres. Anyone that understands math and knows what exactly means; will not come up with any other solution....
But a surveyor can come up with lots of solutions, and he understands math, what's up with that?
But a surveyor understands; that not everyone understands math; when it's applied to defining the surface of the planet. :earth:
Okay everyone calm down.
The Deed says the west 60 acres. We have to consider Utah's rules of construction which I have in a PDF on my computer but Momma has higher priorities for me right now than to go hunting that down. Converting it to an aliquot description is arbitrary, surveyor biased, and overinterpreting the Deed. They could've used aliquot descriptions if that is what they meant.
Acquiescence is not in play, at least not for several decades yet.
There is a little bit of room for interpretation but not too much. The Deed conveys 60 acres, make it so.
Momma handed me a list, I protested that she missed the deadline for such lists but she just shot me the look and said you're not funny. I wasn't trying to be funny :(.
Boundaries has two halves...Deed descriptions and Establishment & Ascertainment. We can't just jump to establishment without considering the first half, the description and its construction.
Dave Karoly, post: 405696, member: 94 wrote: Momma handed me a list, I protested that she missed the deadline for such lists but she just shot me the look and said you're not funny. I wasn't trying to be funny :(.
yeah me too gotta help (aka: wrap ALL the grandkids presents) NOW! she say's, in addition get off the computer.......
LRDay, post: 405686, member: 571 wrote: The West 3/8 of the SW 1/4 would be sort of a bastard PLSS aliquot part.
Yes, but it would be based on a "fractional" description vs. an acreage was my point. I would go with the acreage.
OK
Here is the GLO plat
http://www.highterra.com/pdf/ut260120s0010w0-c0841b.pdf
Nice one, Section 33.
Interesting. So does the east boundary of the west 60 acres have an angle point in it?
Dave Karoly, post: 405703, member: 94 wrote: Interesting. So does the east boundary of the west 60 acres have an angle point in it?
I'd change my take to go with a boundary line agreement per new survey line. Too much it could be this, or this, or that. Solve their problem, don't kick it down the road.
Private Sale Patent in 1953
State Land on North Boundary, Uncle Sugar (Imperial Entanglements) on the South Boundary.
Only about 1000 feet of relief.
Once you figure WHAT to do, then it will be a fun job NEXT SPRING!
Piece of cake, right Leon?
The answer, as always, is: IT DEPENDS.
There has been a nice variety of possibilities cited so far. Part of my process would be to look at how the description came into being and when did that occur. Was the intent of the initial deed for the landowner to keep the west 60 acres or was it to convey away the west 60 acres? The thinking process differs in that they may have attempted to measure the east 100 and call the remainder the west 60. They may have done so, similar to a survey I saw yesterday, by measuring a certain number of rods from one direction only. It's possible they measured the length of the north line and the south line and made a 3/8 and 5/8 split of whatever they found in each case. There may have never been any attempt to find a divide line. Was this done so far back that the use of the term 60 acres was thought of as being identical to 3/8 of the whole quarter? Or was it actually written as the west 3/8 and later referred to as being the west 60 acres?
I would attempt to pitch it all out if there are no physical indications to suggest the intent over the ages. I would involve both parties, provide alternate solutions and have them decide what seemed to be the most agreeable plan of action. Labeling a single solution, based on personal bias, as being the only TRUE AND CORRECT solution is a truckload of excrement.
Bear in mind that the SWå? of Section 33 doesn't HAVE 160(ish) acres in it.
I haven't run the numbers on the Plat (see Leon's link above).
Fun and Games in the Great Basin.
Loyal
Based on the plat I'll back off the W 60 acres according to Govt survey although it could be a solution. There are no government lots in the SW quarter. Does the plat assume 160 Ac then? I can't tell. Whatever is done I doubt if I would argue with it. So the idea to have the owners sign off on it will protect the owners and the surveyor.
I just looked at the HI and Patent, "they" appear to treat the SWå? as 160 acres.
Loyal
I have a file with Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming headnotes under boundaries.
They don't have much under part I Deeds and descriptions. The three states have 872 headnotes total:
59 BOUNDARIES 872
59I Description 146
59II Evidence, Ascertainment, and Establishment 726
That is headnotes, number of cases is less because some of those are repeats of the same case. Utah is the King of acquiescence dwarfing the other states in the number of acquiescence cases. Just by way of contrast, California has 1,005 headnotes just in part I with 2,206 total headnotes. This is not necessarily every boundary case, just cases where a West Publishing Company Attorney-Editor added a headnote which got classified under boundaries.
A key principle of surveying boundaries in Utah and pretty much everywhere:
7. Ault v. Holden, Supreme Court of Utah. March 26, 2002 44 P.3d 781
Headnote: In the construction of boundaries, the intention of the parties is the controlling consideration.
Document Summary: REAL PROPERTY - Boundaries. Absent proof of 20 continuous years of mutual
acquiescence, fence was not a boundary by acquiescence.