roger_LS, post: 406223, member: 11550 wrote: I would question a surveyor's ability, in most cases, to even know as fact that a line has not been previously "established" on the ground. Even in so-called recording states like ca. the practice of regularly recording surveys didn't start happening until the mid 1980's around this area, so we have 100 plus years of potential "first" or "original" surveys being done that we may have no idea of today. We can see a fence, but may not notice a string of old buried pipes set 30' feet from where we now think the line is, or an old unfiled map in some dead surveyors records showing, indeed, the line was establish, and there is evidence to be found if you just knew where to look. So I don't know that I buy into the concept that, because we have no record of it being established, we have some more free rein to work with.
I've seen the paradox of too much information at work. If a monument of unknown origin that represents a section corner fits local possession evidence then it will be accepted but if there is a filed survey showing how it was set then it can be more readily rejected for improper procedure.
I know others have pointed this out, but I am just putting my spin on it; for those who do not see any ambiguity at all in the deed.
If an owner owns the SW quarter of a section and the original plat shows him owning 160 acres... and he says to someone "I'm selling you the West 60 acres of my 160 acres. He "legally" owns 160 acres by the deed and/or by the original plat. His deed and his intent may well be to grant out the 60 of the 160. The deed doesn't spell that out in the adequate language, but the intent could certainly be inferred.
Now, based on the facts of this case, I agree, as long as the owner's see it as reasonable, that granting out 60.000 acres by today's measurement meets within the language of the deed, and, once staked, takes away ambiguity.
I have seen deeds around here that call from a section corner, thence west 330' thence north 660 feet...and then around a tract in strictly fractional distances of 5280. It is hard to figure out what the intent is, because the "four corners of the deed" are calling out precise distances that aren't necessarily fractional to the as-measured distances of the section line. If Mr. Lucas says you hold to an unambiguous deed, that seem counter to all of his preachings about holding apparent actual existing monuments and improvements. (If you've been to a Lucas seminar, "preaching" is quite the adequate term. 😉 )
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...
"...nominal 60 acres"
What?
Tom Adams, post: 406325, member: 7285 wrote: I have seen deeds around here that call from a section corner, thence west 330' thence north 660 feet...and then around a tract in strictly fractional distances of 5280. It is hard to figure out what the intent is, because the "four corners of the deed" are calling out precise distances that aren't necessarily fractional to the as-measured distances of the section line.
This quite common around here also. We need to be careful not to mix "record" and "measured". We need to remember that the "record" is without error.
One common scenario is a description that begins "80 rods S. of the NW cor. of the SW1/4". A little bit of knowledge of local customs, proper research, proper evidence gathering, and a full understanding of retracement surveying/boundary law will usually make the intent crystal clear.
Also, we tend to forget the difference between the "what" and the "where" when we declare something is without ambiguity. "What" is owned may be without ambiguity, but at the same time the question of "where" the boundary is may be a bushel basket full of ambiguities.
If the original owner owned the 1/4 and deeded out the West 60 acres, the 60 acres should have senior rights. If the original owner believed he retained 100 acres then the division could be interpreted as proportionate. In order to determine this you need to do the necessary research. Only when you have established the most likely defendable intent can you begin to divide the 1/4. However if I were to divide the west 60 acres, I agree with Nate equal distance on the north and south boundaries.
Just my .02
The good thing about the PLSS is that it's true north. Running a "true" north line through the SW1/4 until you find the 60 acres wouldn't upset anyone if this land is truly virgin land without occupation.
It's interesting to see that elsewhere 1/41/4's are defined as 40 acres in deeds, that isn't the convention here at all. Aliquot parts are pretty much universally defined as 1/4's and 1/41/4's, sometimes mistakes are made confusing lots with 1/41/4s but that is usually easily dealt with.
Maybe it was a case of more big rancher types gathering up property in the big open lands and they were better educated about the PLSS than the little homestead settlers.
[USER=700]@MightyMoe[/USER]
You're right. We got into a big philosophical discussion, but it seems to me that if it's never been surveyed before, make it be 60 acres in a reasonably simple way so that it cover the west part of the quarter-section. Straight line and discuss it with the owners. How can they argue with simple line that respects the description?
Tom Adams, post: 406460, member: 7285 wrote: [USER=700]@MightyMoe[/USER]
You're right. We got into a big philosophical discussion, but it seems to me that if it's never been surveyed before, make it be 60 acres in a reasonably simple way so that it cover the west part of the quarter-section. Straight line and discuss it with the owners. How can they argue with simple line that respects the description?
It's one that thing for the current owners to have agreement, but if there truly is ambiguity, without a line of agreement in the record, I'd be worried about a future owner, with a future surveyor, casting doubt (right or wrong) about how it was established.
roger_LS, post: 406472, member: 11550 wrote: It's one that thing for the current owners to have agreement, but if there truly is ambiguity, without a line of agreement in the record, I'd be worried about a future owner, with a future surveyor, casting doubt (right or wrong) about how it was established.
If I retraced a survey of a property that had that description, and I found the earlier surveyors monuments, I would never cast doubt on the locations, especially if it is a reasonable interpretation of the deed. I would hope there is a survey plat of what the previous surveyor had done.
While there is some wiggle room between technical error and intentional departure from sound practice, monuments in the ground would change the entire story...
Tom Adams, post: 406479, member: 7285 wrote: If I retraced a survey of a property that had that description, and I found the earlier surveyors monuments, I would never cast doubt on the locations, especially if it is a reasonable interpretation of the deed. I would hope there is a survey plat of what the previous surveyor had done.
I agree, but like defensive driving, it's not yourself that can be the problem, but the other ignorant folks on the road, and we all know they're out there.
I spoke with my associate yesterday and he told me that actually it's the west 65 acres, that he told me wrong at first. That sorta puts the aliquot part solution in jeopardy. I haven't got the deeds yet. His client is the remainder parcel owner - SW 1/4 less the west 65 acres.
So West is left of North, right? Computer magic to form 65 acres. He located all the 1920's brass caps needed for the survey. I can see a boundary line agreement BUT as per recent postings suggest, who would really question a good public filed survey plat with monuments showing a line going North with 65 acres West of the line.
I'll still try and get the deeds all the way to back to patent, but requires a trip to next county "West" from me.
We've had a nice discussion though.
MightyMoe, post: 406453, member: 700 wrote: The good thing about the PLSS is that it's true north. Running a "true" north line through the SW1/4 until you find the 60 acres wouldn't upset anyone if this land is truly virgin land without occupation.
It's interesting to see that elsewhere 1/41/4's are defined as 40 acres in deeds, that isn't the convention here at all. Aliquot parts are pretty much universally defined as 1/4's and 1/41/4's, sometimes mistakes are made confusing lots with 1/41/4s but that is usually easily dealt with.
Maybe it was a case of more big rancher types gathering up property in the big open lands and they were better educated about the PLSS than the little homestead settlers.
You need to come visit me here in South Central Utah. Go to hell in the recorders office. Text book example of the worst descriptions possible. There is a reason the Utah Supreme Court likes acquiescence (big medicine to cure chaos).
LRDay, post: 406555, member: 571 wrote: You need to come visit me here in South Central Utah. Go to hell in the recorders office. Text book example of the worst descriptions possible. There is a reason the Utah Supreme Court likes acquiescence (big medicine to cure chaos).
I think I would find it very interesting
My thoughts are that these stark differences of opinion on this thread may be, to a large degree, a function of the local areas where we are working. With the property values being so high in this area, and the increasingly litigious nature of land owners, I wouldn't think of taking these risks. I'd guess that it probably wouldn't ever come up unless there is a significant value in the land contained in the alternate interpretations of the line, i.e. due north v. parallel to the Westerly line, or an alternate method.
roger_LS, post: 406631, member: 11550 wrote: My thoughts are that these stark differences of opinion on this thread may be, to a large degree, a function of the local areas where we are working. With the property values being so high in this area, and the increasingly litigious nature of land owners, I wouldn't think of taking these risks. I'd guess that it probably wouldn't ever come up unless there is a significant value in the land contained in the alternate interpretations of the line, i.e. due north v. parallel to the Westerly line, or an alternate method.
Roger,
Your post makes sense. Unfortunately people can be exceedingly stupid, spending 50k to defend $750 worth of land.
In the end this isn't a risk analysis. It's an attempt to locate the corners correctly. While there is some value in tighter measurement standards for high value land, a defensible solution is required everywhere. I'm certain you know that but felt the clarification was in order. .
thebionicman, post: 406636, member: 8136 wrote: Roger,
Your post makes sense. Unfortunately people can be exceedingly stupid, spending 50k to defend $750 worth of land.
In the end this isn't a risk analysis. It's an attempt to locate the corners correctly. While there is some value in tighter measurement standards for high value land, a defensible solution is required everywhere. I'm certain you know that but felt the clarification was in order. .
If there is only a $750 difference in value between a due north line and a line parallel to the Westerly line, then maybe, who cares. If it places a building site or a potential road on one side or the other, then different story. My only point is that we didn't create this problem/uncertainty and I wouldn't personally feel burdened to solve the problem if it meant unnecessarily taking on additional liability. So, I would see it as a risk analysis. It's the property owners problem, they bought the land without first engaging a surveyor to discover the ambiguity.
roger_LS, post: 406638, member: 11550 wrote: If there is only a $750 difference in value between a due north line and a line parallel to the Westerly line, then maybe, who cares. If it places a building site or a potential road on one side or the other, then different story. My only point is that we didn't create this problem/uncertainty and I wouldn't personally feel burdened to solve the problem if it meant unnecessarily taking on additional liability. So, I would see it as a risk analysis. It's the property owners problem, they bought the land without first engaging a surveyor to discover the ambiguity.
Again we agree on most points, just with a different perspective.
The owners created a problem. One of the Professional services I provide is helping them solve it. It is the best paying (and most rewarding) service I provide short of testimony time. By letting them solve it I am reducing my liability and gaining a client.
thebionicman, post: 406641, member: 8136 wrote: Again we agree on most points, just with a different perspective.
The owners created a problem. One of the Professional services I provide is helping them solve it. It is the best paying (and most rewarding) service I provide short of testimony time. By letting them solve it I am reducing my liability and gaining a client.
Maybe we're in complete agreement as I agree we should be a part of the solution and both owners should be involved. Just a question of when a Line of Agreement is needed, as, if done properly, is the most iron clad solution to leave for all involved... surveyors & land owners.
A boundary line agreement is not needed. Assume you provide a survey for your client, set corners and provide a copy to the other landowner. That landowner can accept the results without a signature or formal agreement. Should he choose to reject the results he would need his own survey and then a lawyer. I would suggest you record a copy of the survey along with language of the date it was presented to the adjacent landowner. It should be filed as a part of a deed from your client to your client with a revised description that references and includes the survey. You would want a very readable letter or legal size survey copy or survey original.
Paul in PA
