I am working on a boundary survey of a small 5 acre parcel on the south side of the Ocala National Forest in Florida. It is in Section 36, Township 17 South, Range 26 East, Tallahassee Meridian, Florida. My description is of a aliquot part masquerading as a meets and bounds description where the POC starts at the South 1/4 Corner.
Ok now a little history. The south line was run by Deputy Surveyor C.C. Tracy in 1846. He was running out the township and range lines in the area. In this case he started at the NE corner of T18S-R26E and ran West setting 1/4 corners and section corners at 40 & 80 chains. Then Deputy Surveyor J.M. Gould in 1849 worked on subdividing T17S-R26E (the township I am in). Now in Florida, Deputy Surveyors subdivided township using all kinds of ways. In this case he started at the NW corner of Section 1 and ran south setting 1/4 corners and section corners until he intersected the south line of the township. You can tell from his township diagram how he ran out the township.
It appears he did all of the north-south lines like that and then did all of the east-west lines by intersecting with the north-south lines he already run. At the SW corner of Section 36, he intersected the township line 5.90 chains east of the section corner that C.C. Tracy set in 1846 and he set a closing corner there. Here are his notes of the intersection:
Here is what section 36 looks like on the original township plat:
Ok, here is the catch, I can find no evidence that J.M. Gould set a S 1/4 corner for Section 36 at the midpoint on the line between his closing corner and the SE corner. So the only 1/4 corner left in the field with the 19th century flagging all over it was the one that C.C. Tracy set at 40 chains from the SE corner of Section 36. Over the intervening years it looks like surveyors in Section 36 used that 1/4 corner that was existing to do their breakdowns.
Now fast forward to the late 1980's and 1990's. BLM is working on their dependent resurvey for the Forest Service. They said the S 1/4 corner is really at midpoint on the township boundary between J.M. Gould's closing corner at the SW corner and C.C. Tracy's Township corner. BLM found nothing at the midpoint and set nothing, but held the position for there breakdown for the forest boundary in the northern part of the section. Here is their plat:
So... where is the 1/4 corner for section 36?
So it is a choice between:
"Over the intervening years it looks like surveyors in Section 36 used that 1/4 corner that was existing to do their breakdowns."
versus
"BLM found nothing at the midpoint and set nothing, but held the [midpoint] for their breakdown ... in the northern part of the section"
Would you give more weight to an unmonumented position that does not adjoin or affect the US lands, or to a monument that has been used by others?
If the NW standard corner for section 1 was recovered, I would then recover the NE standard corner of section one which would locate the position of the Township line. Then I would hold the called distance for the position of the closing corner which would give me the South line of section 36, No government lots involved so I would place the 1/4 corner at the midpoint of the South line of section 36. With that info would go to the field to see what was there today and if developed use the position held to control the existing occupation and not then set a new corner at the computed midpoint, might use that location to further subdivide the section if it was undeveloped with no evidence of possession lines. Sounds like all that is moot, if the area of interest has been subdivided down to 5 acre chunks and find harmony, don't leave chaos.
jud
First off, I assume you are retracing/resurveying the 5 acres. Find the evidence of the boundary of the 5 acres as originally (or subsequently) placed on the ground.
As to the BLM problem, this is why the BLM should not be allowed to survey anywhere near private lands. Heck I'm surprised they didn't lot the south and east parts of section 36! However, keep in mind the corners the BLM determines/proportions in, for use in their own mathematical gymnastics are NOT BINDING on private landowners, they are merely considered control points.
As for what to do: [sarcasm]Gee, the corners were determined by the BLM, therefore they must control.[/sarcasm]
Does the BLM notes say anyting about the apparent reliance on the 1/4 west of their shiny new proportioned corner? My guess would be, if they even noted it, would be something along the lines of "Fnd _______, used by others, but it is not at the correct Manual position, therefore it is rejected."
If you have evidence the "wrong" 1/4 corner was used to establish the boundary you are retracing, use it. Then throw the coordinates of the BLM proportioned position into the swamp.
The BLM accepts the monument as the 1/4 corner for Section 1, but not for Section 36.
Other than the way the township to the North was broken down being unusual, but can be retraced, I see no problem with that conclusion, was the township to the South broken down the same way, I suspect it was? Believe the original Oregon manual had things running from North to South for Township breakdowns, never dealt with one of those, The GLO did the work I retrace, Not Oregon Territory.
jud
What do C.C. Tracy’s notes say about the post he set 40ch west of the SE corner of Section 36? Did he call it the ¼ corner between Section 36 and Section 1?
DDSM:beer:
> What do C.C. Tracy’s notes say about the post he set 40ch west of the SE corner of Section 36? Did he call it the ¼ corner between Section 36 and Section 1?
>
> DDSM:beer:
Yes, both surveyors set "1/4 Corners" (not 1/2 mile posts).
Gee Brian
[sarcasm]It sounds like you've lost confidence in the BLM to do dependent resurveys.[/sarcasm]
They should let Keith back in for this one and then send him back into exile.
This is in the same neighborhood Rivers v. Lozeau was in. Thanks to that dependent resurvey the line between them now has a 25 foot jog in it where it was straight before. 
I don't see what harm a dependent resurvey can do by surveying the way it should have been done rather than the way it was done. [sarcasm]Nothing much depends on the locally accepted corner[/sarcasm]
Here is an interesting description that demonstates the topic of the thread.
SEC 36 TWP 17 RGE 26
COM AT THE SW COR TH S 89-33-30 E ALONG THE S LINE OF THE
SW 1/4 2262.11 FT TO THE S 1/4 COR OF SEC TH N 00-18-10 E
ALONG THE N-S MID SEC LINE 25 FT TO THE POB OF THIS
DESCRIPTION: FROM SAID POB TH N 89-33-30 W 19.16 FT TH
N 00-18-10 E 635 FT TH S 89-33-30 E 19.16 FT TO A POINT ON
THE N-S MID-SEC LINE OF AFOREMENTIONED SEC TH S 89-35-30 E
432.56 FT TO A PT ON W LN OF E 231 FT OF SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF
SE 1/4 TH S 00-18-29 W ALG W LN OF E 231 FT OF SW 1/4 OF SW
1/4 OF SE 1/4 635 FT TH N 89-35-30 W 432.50 FT TO POB SUBJ
TO EASEMENTS, ROW`S & RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD IF ANY
When they closed and set closing corners they were not required to set the missing quarter corner. That was left for some future surveyor (it was a money saving policy). The BLM done it right, the 1/4 corner for Section 1 in the next township south doesn't apply to Section 36 (but maybe it does if everyone has used it and relied upon it, but not because it is in the right place).
This happens everywhere and a lot of confusion is the result. Taking into consideration it's 2013 and there is lot of water under the bridge and probably nobody ever did it right at first, trying to breakdown the section and re establish the boundaries where they never been probably is not the right solution. You are going to need to apply and use more state boundary law and help the landowners work it out (establish their boundaries or recognize where they have already been established and document it).
A lot of posts are excellent. one thing I would do is contact Florida Power to see whether they had this section run. If there are any transmission lines in this section, that would be huge. FPC uses consultants for sections, they are done very well, hard to argue with. Notes and copies of the survey are usually available........ good luck
The BLM did it right for an independent resurvey but not a dependent resurvey. The description calls for 2262 from the sw cor to the s qtr cor. The resurvey shows 2262 from the sw cor 36 to the n qtr 1. The n qtr of 1 should not have been used to control the subdivision of 36 but it was. A dependent resurvey should not be allowed to start the subdivision over 200 ft east of where it was.
Another thing I don't understand is why they prorated the north and west 1/4 corners at the midpoint of the section line. In neither case did the original surveyor set the 1/4 corners at midpoint.
Here are the notes for the north line of section 36 as an example:
It seems that BLM always wants to set the 1/4 corner at midpoint even though we know that it wasn't really set there.
You should request BLM correct their survey.
Maybe it was done according to special instructions for the contract supplementing the manual in effect at the time. Also the notes we see are not the notes recorded during the work but a cleaned up set, also notes are used to prepare the plat and it is the plat that is approved, not the notes. Strong justification for using the data on the plat over the notes. The plats are what was relied on both by the government agents and the purchaser or homesteader to transfer title from government control to private ownership, not the field notes. Believe I would hold the plat, especially if supported by possession lines. Be interesting to know the whys, but it is the results that are documented and that count.
jud
Technically the BLM did their survey right to define the federal interest. Maybe they didn't set the S 1/4 of Section 36 so as not to upset the private interests. The S 1/4 of Sec 36 appears to never have been set. The proper way to set it the first time (probably way to late now) is at midpoint between the section corners. The math on the BLM plat works for me. I wouldn't rely upon the BLM plat other than to define the federal interest in the section.
Apparently since no one (except BLM) ever new how or or where the S 1/4 should have been set, it never was set and BLM didn't set it either (other than the resurvey plat to define their interest). The private interests, which seem to have been established using the N 1/4 of Sec 1 need to be surveyed according to state law and all the boundary establishment rules therein.
The original plat is silent on the location of the north quarter corner so I would think the field notes would be best documentary evidence of where it was set.
I don't think the government field notes are actually field notes. They are more like a narrative map done in the office later similar to our Record of Survey.
I missed that the BLM did not set the s qtr cor. The question was where is the qtr. cor. It's where the monumnt is that everyone has been using.
I have a problem on why you think the BLM survey is even "relevant" as Mr. Lucas would say. I also have a problem with your "aliquot part masquerading as a metes and bounds description". Survey the 5 Ac. parcel. The BLM survey looks perfectly clear.
Pablo
