Where is the 1/4 corner ? Keith's Opinion
Norm Miller brought this thread to Keith's attention on the "Elsewhere Board"
Keith's reply which may be of interest follows. Wendell can ignore the last sentence or not.
"Norm,
Looks to me like the BLM did it again!!
I had a major disagreement with the Eastern States procedures of using the bogus theory, that we all know about, and their complete unprofessional method of calling for a corner position at the bogus theory position and then not monumenting it. The existing monument is close by and rejected by the Eastern States surveyor and naturally the land owners only see one monument.
It would seem very clear that this case in Florida has many ownership lines as shown on one graphic, yet BLM will use the bogus theory and establish their position of the 1/4 sec. cor. and mess up all of the ownership lines in the section. And of course are not monumenting that position!
Looks like a repeat of the famous case of Rivers!
The bogus theory on display again!
And of course, the Washington Office Cadastral Survey has no idea of what is happening with the bogus theory!!
As you know, I can't comment over there, as I was banned for a really slilly reason.
Keith"
Paul in PA
The conveyances away from the government are strictly construed regardless of extrinsic evidence later found that might alter the dimensions of the conveyance document. Those conveyances were based on the official plat. The official plat does not show 1/4 corners, but only the full section. Therefore the section corners are controlling and the 1/4's are half way between; for purposes of what the government retained. Had the official plat shown the 1/4's, then the BLM would need to use them. But the same or similar result would turn up as they mathematically create center of section and further midpoints.
As others noted, the accepted field division would apply to private parcels under those rules.
Different rules for different situations. It may seem messy, it is messy, but there is a reason for it. There are constitutional protections relating to the disposal of public lands that are being addressed by this procedure. While I respect Keith's opinion; he is wrong on this whole bogus theory stuff and the BLM is correct.
I couldn't disagree more. A dependent resurvey should depend on evidence of previous subdivision. When it doesn't its bogus.
Either way the dependant resurvey is based on evidence of subdivision. The only disagreement is over how much weight to give each piece of evidence in a given situation. If the government wanted to use the 1/4's that were set and mentioned in the field notes, they could easily have included them on the plat to be used for conveyance. Instead they chose to show only the section. Pretty clear the intent of the conveyance was to use midpoints if the descriptions refer to the plat. The field notes clearly reject a section corner in favor of a new one as well. If you accept the 1/4, do you also use the section corner that was set during the same survey as the 1/4? This is not a case of uncertainty in location based on conflicting or lack of evidence. Both surveys can be positively located on the ground and the question is which one controls based on rights of the parties. The one survey is the official one used for conveyance and the government is stuck with it whether they like it or not, and whether it's beneficial to the public or not.
Just as the government can not take more or less private land than described in an eminent domain negotiation or taking, it can not give more or less than described in a conveyance of public land.
