Here are the earlier GLO plats on both side of Section 33. Seems they didn't go into the hills until about 1920. Looks like the SW 1/4 of Section 33 could have been patented via the 1876 Stewart Jr survey so the 1920's survey was to protect the previous plat.
Craig plat from 1856 (signed by Burr)
http://www.highterra.com/pdf/ut260120s0010w0-c0841.pdf
Stewart Jr plat from 1876. Looks like he hunted for Craig, wonder if he actually found him. Can't seem to download the notes.
http://www.highterra.com/pdf/ut260120s0010w0-c0841a.pdf
LRDay, post: 405729, member: 571 wrote: Here are the earlier GLO plats on both side of Section 33. Seems they didn't go into the hills until about 1920. Looks like the SW 1/4 of Section 33 could have been patented via the 1876 Stewart Jr survey so the 1920's survey was to protect the previous plat.
Craig plat from 1856 (signed by Burr)
http://www.highterra.com/pdf/ut260120s0010w0-c0841.pdfStewart Jr plat from 1876. Looks like he hunted for Craig, wonder if he actually found him. Can't seem to download the notes.
http://www.highterra.com/pdf/ut260120s0010w0-c0841a.pdf
What's the distance from the å? corner of Section 32, the angle point, to the å? of Section 33?
Looking at all this leads to the obvious question: WHY!!!!!!
Why would anyone convey the west 60 acres of THAT based on anything close to normal procedure?
Holy Cow, post: 405742, member: 50 wrote: Looking at all this leads to the obvious question: WHY!!!!!!
Why would anyone convey the west 60 acres of THAT based on anything close to normal procedure?
Yes, that is a great question. I am familiar with the way things are done in Leon's area of practice, things have been done here much the same way. Is it related to the culture of the people being the same? Probably, but I'm not a social scientist.
Anyway, there are two distinct possibilities of "why". One being that the landowners probably knew nothing of the irregular geometry of the gov't surveys of the area in question. The other is that they knew the geometry was fubar'd and they didn't know how to handle it and they certainly didn't want to spend the large amount of money necessary to have a competent surveyor figure it out and mark their intentions on the ground.
As for the solution, it would appear that a fair amount of research into the history of surveys, patents, deeds, laws, use, etc. would need to be undertaken, but in the end the landowners will decide the ultimate solution. So, if possible, why not have them involved from the start - it would probably save them a boat load of money and would make the surveyor a professional in their eyes?
The most unprofessional thing to do would be to try and force a "solution" upon them.
Brian Allen, post: 405747, member: 1333 wrote:
The most unprofessional thing to do would be to try and force a "solution" upon them.
Can I get an AMEN?
Charles L. Dowdell, post: 405738, member: 82 wrote: What's the distance from the å? corner of Section 32, the angle point, to the å? of Section 33?
As you have noticed its not on the GLO plat. For some reason I can't get the notes to download from the BLM site. I'd need to call my friend and see if they have measured it yet. I'm not doing this survey, just a free quasi-consultant for an associate. He told me they found GLO brass caps from the 1920's but I didn't quiz him on which ones.
Hope its not one of those quarter corners the GLO left for a future surveyor!!
LRDay, post: 405761, member: 571 wrote: As you have noticed its not on the GLO plat. For some reason I can't get the notes to download from the BLM site. I'd need to call my friend and see if they have measured it yet. I'm not doing this survey, just a free quasi-consultant for an associate. He told me they found GLO brass caps from the 1920's but I didn't quiz him on which ones.
Hope its not one of those quarter corners the GLO left for a future surveyor!!
Maybe I missed it, but, I should have asked about the description. Was it prepared prior to or after the 1920's retracement, or, is it pretty much recent?
Charles L. Dowdell, post: 405764, member: 82 wrote: Maybe I missed it, but, I should have asked about the description. Was it prepared prior to or after the 1920's retracement, or, is it pretty much recent?
Charles, sounds like the patent was 1953
Here's the Patent
got the notes for the missing distance. 8.78 chains.
LRDay, post: 405771, member: 571 wrote: got the notes for the missing distance. 8.78 chains.
I just checked the distances along the South Line and there is an error, 80.89-2.87-6.51= 71.51, not 74.38
Yeah, 74.38 - 71.51 = 2.87
Plat drafter didn't subtract the 2.87 or the line goes to the wrong place.
I'll need to look at more notes.
Was not the intent of the PLSS to make lines N-S as one moved West from the East Township line? With that in mind would the line not be parallel to the East line? That is the remainder has a regular shape, and I do mean remainder. The West 60 acres is not an aliquot description, therefore it is metes and bounds and all PLSS thoughts can be discarded, so the acreage holds.
In giving both owners an option I would show an alternative and that would be the North and South lines would be proportional distances to the final acreages.
Paul in nonPLSS PA
I see no ambiguity in the deed whatsoever. If it says the SW 1/4 less the west 60 acres, than est line of the 60 acres is parallel to the west. If it read less the west 200 feet you would have questioned it. In breaking down PLSS land I've always seen fractional calls as means between the adjacent calls and distance and area call to have the intention of being parallel to the adjacent lines. You'll need to re-establish the west line of the SW 1/4 the same way as the GLO and calc the width of a 60 acre tract. Any other way would have to be described in a different way.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
Holy Cow, post: 405712, member: 50 wrote: 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.
Are you saying that in the 1920s and 30s land surveyors weren't smart enough to know the math to figure out that the west 3/8s was not the same as the west 60 acres? This is an absurd notion. These are the men who implemented the PLSS. They were well aware of the difference.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
paden cash, post: 405683, member: 20 wrote: Why?
Last night was crazy around here, and my gun had a baby 😉 (more on that in a minute)
I do not interpret the original description [the West 60 acres of the southwest quarter of Section 33] in this thread as an ÛÏaliquotÛ description. My take on the description is that itÛªs calling for 60 acres, more specifically, the West 60 acres. I have always interpreted this as an ÛÏacreageÛ description thus meaning the east line of the parcel is parallel to the west line at a perpendicular distance which achieves the acreage called for in the description. Of course the north and south lines of the southwest å? play into the equation as well. I think there is a procedure stated in ÛBrownÛ or one of our survey bibles.
Happy Holidays Bud 😎
I would bet that no one with any kind of training in surveying or real estate law had any part in drafting the first deed. It was most likely the buyer, seller or someone at the courthouse.
"We didn't believe your Plat, Miss O'Shaughnessy, we believed your $200." -Sam Spade, Spade and Archer Land Surveyors.
While, (Whilst) on a crazed internet search conquest I stumbled across this. Personally I think ALL of us should read it. It's kind of a refersher course.
http://cfeds.org/docs/sml/Specifications4DescriptionsLand7_2015Final.pdf
Happy Holidays y'all 😎
Why proportion the 60 of sequential conveyances?
