Holy Cow, post: 405804, member: 50 wrote: 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.
It's pretty clear that 60 acres was conveyed, so construe the plain words of the description. I think we are overthinking this problem.
Dave Karoly, post: 405835, member: 94 wrote: It's pretty clear that 60 acres was conveyed, so construe the plain words of the description. I think we are overthinking this problem.
I agree. In Oklahoma Case Law specific acreage is considered finite unless: the grantor does not have title to that much acreage (of course) or, in a few cases, where the term "more or less" was a part of the conveyance. In one of those cases the physical (fenced) historic boundary location was not in question. In at least one case however the "West 20 acres, more or less, of the SE/4 of the SW/4" was ruled to be a proportional grant. But only due to the numerating ambiguity of "more or less".
Dave Karoly, post: 405835, member: 94 wrote: It's pretty clear that 60 acres was conveyed, so construe the plain words of the description. I think we are overthinking this problem.
So far I haven't found a Utah case that directly address this issue, might be one just haven't found it yet. There are plenty of references to the intent of the grantor is paramount. The intent to convey 60 acres seems solid to me. The intent of how the line was to be struck is not all that clear to me. My associate is going to need to look into that, the circumstances at the time of the conveyance, whether there is any people still around that might shed some light on what happened, why and what they believe the intent was. Who drafted the deed? I'm still in favor of a boundary line agreement/adjustment has the final clear solution. That's probably the only way I'd go forward if it were my survey.
Maybe someone will post a case from another state on how it was resolved there. Still might not be what the landowners want.
LRDay, post: 405854, member: 571 wrote: So far I haven't found a Utah case that directly address this issue, might be one just haven't found it yet. There are plenty of references to the intent of the grantor is paramount. The intent to convey 60 acres seems solid to me. The intent of how the line was to be struck is not all that clear to me. My associate is going to need to look into that, the circumstances at the time of the conveyance, whether there is any people still around that might shed some light on what happened, why and what they believe the intent was. Who drafted the deed? I'm still in favor of a boundary line agreement/adjustment has the final clear solution. That's probably the only way I'd go forward if it were my survey.
Maybe someone will post a case from another state on how it was resolved there. Still might not be what the landowners want.
Assuming there is no dispute and they asked me where the east line of the west 60 acres then I would plot it on the map and show them. If there is no objection then I would stake it. If they want to agree to something different then do the appropriate documentation.
Given what we know I don't really see an opening for extrinsic evidence.
Several times I have encountered a case where something like the west 20 acres of the north half of the northwest quarter was conveyed away then later the east three-quarters of the north half of the northwest quarter was conveyed away. In their minds each one quarter of the whole was 20 acres.
LRDay, post: 405779, member: 571 wrote: 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.
I finally got a chance to sit down and do some calc's pertaining to the section. The 71.51 chains fits a closure way better than the 74.38 chains to determine the West å? mile on the South line. The section does not close all that great, -15.76' in Northing & +14.54' in Easting, with a closing Bearing & Distance of: S42å¡41'40"W - 21.44'. I made a rough sketch of how I would do this West 60 Acres if you want me to e-mail it to you.
Definitely not an aliqiout descriprion. As for the East line, my first choice would be cardinal if the patent was issued before the third BLM/GLO plat. If issued after I would run parallel to the West boundary.
Any plat that came after the patent doesn't mean a thing for determining where the 1/4 is, except as the best data to use for corner monument searches and as a guide for proportioning losteoporosis monuments.
Equidistant, on north, and south lines, slide e, til ya get 60 ac.
Very simple.... 🙂
Pretend it is water. Start at west end.fill er up, till it's 60 acres. Its the old gas pump routine... Pump 20 bucks into my tank please! Er... Make that 60 bucks.
Without a qualifier, this is record title.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 405877, member: 291 wrote: Pretend it is water. Start at west end.fill er up, till it's 60 acres. Its the old gas pump routine... Pump 20 bucks into my tank please! Er... Make that 60 bucks.
Without a qualifier, this is record title.
The "computer magic" to produce 60.0000 acres is no problem. Could easily do that with any straight curved or angled line.
The question to answer before a line can be surveyed is was the intent to transfer 60 acres or 60 of the 160 patent acres. If that cannot be determined by the surveyor the owners need to resolve it. 60 out of the 160 has definite BLM rules for aliquot construction and a 60 acre quantity would be parallel to the west line with all its bends. If at the time of the transfer there were believed to be 160 acres in the SW 1/4 the intent could well have been 60 acres of the total 160 as returned in the government survey and in the patent. I don't agree the the W 60 of the southwest always is a specific quantity rather than an aliquot part although it could be. Another consideration is that sometime in the past the SW 1/4 was divided by proportion as in a will and the W 60 was a 3/8 share of the whole.
linebender, post: 405993, member: 449 wrote: The question to answer before a line can be surveyed is was the intent to transfer 60 acres or 60 of the 160 patent acres. If that cannot be determined by the surveyor the owners need to resolve it. 60 out of the 160 has definite BLM rules for aliquot construction and a 60 acre quantity would be parallel to the west line with all its bends. If at the time of the transfer there were believed to be 160 acres in the SW 1/4 the intent could well have been 60 acres of the total 160 as returned in the government survey and in the patent. I don't agree the the W 60 of the southwest always is a specific quantity rather than an aliquot part although it could be. Another consideration is that sometime in the past the SW 1/4 was divided by proportion as in a will and the W 60 was a 3/8 share of the whole.
With all due respect LB I think attempting to determine an 'intent' of a deed where there are no ambiguities is a slippery slope, at least around here. Too many cases have held acreage is a finite amount when deeded. Even if a previous conveyance 'hinted' at a proportional amount it would probably be an uphill battle. Unless of course, as you noted, the seller only held title to a proportional amount.
LRDay, post: 405625, member: 571 wrote: the West 60 acres of the southwest quarter of Section 33
What is the problem? What if it said "Of even width", now, it would always be the same width, and the E line would undulate with the westerly line, of the SW 1/4.
If it said other qualifying words, things would happen. Take it SIMPLE, and DIRECT.
To me, this is UN ambiguous.
N
A slight hijack here..
I had a client a few years back that owned (amongst a thousand other) "The NE 8.53 acres of Gov't. Lot 3 of Sec. 5" (8N, 3W, I.M. I believe) . The intent (and boundary) was truly an aliquot division. It took some looking at and a research of the surrounding chain of title, but when I realized the solution it was apparent. Anybody else see the correlation? This is one example of "deeded acreage" being intended as proportional.
I'll try to get the title history for this, see if anything makes more sense. The patent shows three owners for this and several other parcels. Maybe they split it and all in all there was a 3/8 - 5/8 for this particular parcel. That would maybe lean to the proportional (aliquot) solution.
Probably be a few days before I get my hands on this.
paden cash, post: 406006, member: 20 wrote: Anybody else see the correlation?
If you take the southern 20 out of 37.06 and equally divide what's left you get the NE 8.53.
Why not calculate the position of the W1/2 of the W1/2 of the SW1/4 and then adjust the line parallel to the bearing of the East line of the W1/2 W1/2 SW1/4 to get exactly 60 Acres, this would make the line more in agreement with the rest of the aliquot parts of the Section. Just a thought.
Bill93, post: 406009, member: 87 wrote: If you take the southern 20 out of 37.06 and equally divide what's left you get the NE 8.53.
Although more prevalent 100 years ago, there is still a small school of thought to provide a "standard acreage" (5, 10, 20, 40, etc.) when subdividing and always allowing the "remainder" to be closest to the closing line. As was in this case, the southern portion of the Lot was surveyed at 10 ch., theoretically providing a "standard" 20 acre tract. The remainder was 17.06 acres. The NE proportion fell as 8.53 acres.
paden cash, post: 406002, member: 20 wrote: With all due respect LB I think attempting to determine an 'intent' of a deed where there are no ambiguities is a slippery slope, at least around here. Too many cases have held acreage is a finite amount when deeded. Even if a previous conveyance 'hinted' at a proportional amount it would probably be an uphill battle. Unless of course, as you noted, the seller only held title to a proportional amount.
Jeff Lucas, at a recent seminar made a clear point of this. When a deed is unambiguous, you can't leave the document to search for intent elsewhere. Only when there is ambiguity do you look outside the deed to other clues as to the intention of the original grantor.
The key point that has been largely ignored so far is that one must know where "west" is. We've beat "north" to death so now we've moved on to "west".
Does "west" equate to "westernmost"?
Where would the "west 0.05 acres" be found in this section? Would the east line(s) of the "west 0.10 acres" be parallel to the east line(s) of the "west 0.05 acres"?
Is the east line a single line or two lines?