I'm at the point where I am ready to sit down with the client and discuss the situation and see what approach he wants to take. Not sure if he has any recourse against the subdivider and whether the value of the land in question will justify any action, but I believe I have the facts of the situation figured out. This is not a "deep-pocket" petroleum related project, so we'll see how the landowner wants to pursue it.
Andy Nold, post: 393393, member: 7 wrote: The southeast and northeast corners of the section are in place, 400-500 feet away from where the subdivision "plack" indicates the corners are. The original subdivider's deed calls for section 3 and does not contain a metes and bounds description or any calls for monuments.
The section to the northwest is part of Block 13, a senior survey by the H&GN Ry Company which was aligned to embrace as much of the Toyah Creek floodplain as possible.
So the land is described in the subdivider's deed simply by reference to the description in the patent? The question that I have is where the land was thought to be at the time of patent. The GLO GIS shows roads and cultural features that probably were built according to someone's idea of where Survey 3 was located, right? Is the real situation that there has been a succession of resurveys that have rethought the location of the land patented as Section 3? That would be yet another wrinkle to add into the mix.
The other question that I'd have is whether Survey 3 was ever under common ownership with any of the adjoining lands and whether when the land left common ownership the element of recognized boundaries would enter into the identification of the land.
Andy! We need to talk. I am dealing with these unrecorded subdivisions too. I found a name of another company out of El Paso that claims they set corners on some lots that I'm going to work on. The deeds all have the carto letterhead. When I get to the office on Monday I'll show you a couple I'm dealing with.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
Kent McMillan, post: 393404, member: 3 wrote: So the land is described in the subdivider's deed simply by reference to the description in the patent? The question that I have is where the land was thought to be at the time of patent.
Section 3 was sold as School Land and patented to B.E. Quinn, Jr. in 1948. B.E. Quinn appears as patentee to other lands in the vicinity, so it makes me wonder if he owned a good-sized ranch of which Section 3 was a part.
If so, does the pattern of cultural features reflect some prior resurvey? I suppose the question boils down to this: "What evidence is there that would support the location of Section 3 in a position that agrees with the roads and fences that the GIS representation does?
Kent McMillan, post: 393404, member: 3 wrote: So the land is described in the subdivider's deed simply by reference to the description in the patent? The question that I have is where the land was thought to be at the time of patent.
Point of Historical interest: Note that the "B.S. Estes" who appears as Grantee of other School Land in the vicinity was none other than BILLIE SOL ESTES!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billie_Sol_Estes
I think we've done a pretty good job of matching to past work including Murray Harris and Fred Armstrong. I've done a lot of stuff in the blocks to the east and the geometry lines up pretty well with the recovered monuments. To shift the survey 400 feet to the south to match the road would put a significant kink in the works and is not supported by the facts on the ground. My boundary lines are also consistent with newer work done by other RPLSs and 1 LSLS who are active in the area. The main thing I want to research more is who thinks they own the strip between the section line and the road. There might be some difference between the survey line and the occupation line, but I'm not sure on that yet. I'm not certain that the original subdivider has much of an opinion on the true location of the land as his address is out of state and I'm not sure if he has ever seen the property.
And yes, we are in B.S. Estes territory. I think there was supposed to be an ammonia tank farm on that quarter section but I didn't see any signs of it. 😉
Andy Nold, post: 393734, member: 7 wrote: I think we've done a pretty good job of matching to past work including Murray Harris and Fred Armstrong.
I assume that since Section 3 was sold as School Land that there were corrected field notes involved. Were there multiple sets of corrected notes, by any chance?
After thinking about this problem a bit more, I've concluded that really the only solution I'd adopt is to put the lots on the ground as described in the various deeds even though the subdivision omits part of Section 3 and it places several of the lots in gross conflict with the adjacent survey as a result. The descriptions are too definite to leave much doubt about where the subdivider placed the various lot corners on the ground aside from just the rounding errors of coordinates. I'm assuming that the lats and longs recited actually take you to the places on the ground that the plat is based upon, even if they are not the lines and corners of the survey as supposed in compiling the GIS.
I would be sure to advise a lot owner that there is a problem that is likely to surface in the future and that permanent improvements should take that into account. Who could have ever predicted that buying land in West Texas with a credit card via an internet site might not be a completely reliable way to buy land? :>
I sent the boundary survey results to the purchaser this morning. We will discuss possible solutions to the subdivision issues. The original subdivider still has unsold property, so an adjustment might be possible for the purchaser to acquire the 5.01 acre lots he thought he was purchasing. I've got a request in to the GLO for additional files.
I'm not hopeful of finding anything due to heavy agricultural use, but I believe the T&P work did continue to the west before the H&GN block was determined to be senior. I am curious if it would be possible to find section and or block corners to the west. I'll see if I can find something more definitive by Mr. Harris.
I suppose that the real problem is that the land isn't worth that much and none of the lot purchasers would have any motivation to spend more than that on the necessary fix.
I learned that the purchase price was about $90 per acre. I haven't tabulated time yet, but I'm sure the cost of the surveying has exceeded that already. Wondering how much effort I should exert on finding the paperwork on County Road 112 on the south and west side of the subdivision plat. Client said stake it where it falls and he isn't worried if he is shorted some acreage.
Seriously... $955 for 10.2 acres. So what if it turns out be 9.72 acres. Can you get a better price in your state?
Andy Nold, post: 393971, member: 7 wrote: Seriously... $955 for 10.2 acres. So what if it turns out be 9.72 acres. Can you get a better price in your state?
I think I spent about that last week on burgers and fries [emoji16]
More than six years later, I'm still dealing with this. I wish there was a way to drop unlicensed surveyors under the jail. We probably need legislative action to cure this.
@andy-nold ????