Where is the East One-Half?

If valid parol evidence is available, then obtain it.

Otherwise, half by area.

I would ask the landowner what he wanted to give his son then write a legal for the attorney to use. But I expect I would go midpoint to midpoint of the original north and south lines because I think his intention (but I would ask him) is to give the son whatever land he owned in the east 1/2.

Equal acreage for all of 39 parallel to east line. Lots 11 & 12 and whatever else lessed out respectively after split.

Have a great weekend! B-)

> If valid parol evidence is available, then obtain it.
>
> Otherwise, half by area.

I agree on the Parol evidence. But half should be an aliquot half, unless proven otherwise by the parol evidence.

East half by area ignoring the RR, Lot 12, Lot 11 & fee road. In other words the East half by area of the original Lot 39.

Remember, this is just the opinion of a country surveyor from a metes and bounds state so don't beat up on me too bad. I'm willing to learn.

That depends on the State.

In California private "half" splits are presumed to be half by area unless otherwise stated in the Deed.

Wattles mentions a case in SF (no reference given) in which a grant was made of half of a subdivision lot. The grantor left on a European vacation and when he returned he saw that the Grantee has divided the lot with a boundary of several courses convenient to him but he had only taken half. The Court sided with the Grantee. There is no strict rule in California that the division line has to follow some regular pattern. I would presume that the line would run roughly up the middle close to cardinal but other evidence such as fences may inform a different answer.

Parallel with the east line of Lot 39 so each new parcel has equal area.

Where is the East One-Half? (UPDATE)

The county assessor took the deed and updated their map as shown the in image below. It appears the line split was made from the aliquot corners on the east to the road ROW on the west. This produced 36.64 acres on west side and 41.30 acres on east side. The assessor designated them as the E 1/2 Lot 39 and the W 1/2 Lot 39.

So our office called the attorney to get a clarification on what the intent was supposed to be. The attorney replied that the intent was to deed the entire Lot 39 and the "E 1/2" description was never supposed to be on the deed. I am sure he is charging by the hour...

The lawyer did not convey the father's intent very clearly.

Ask the father what his intent is, either half acreage or other and state so in your report.

0.02

Where is the East One-Half? (UPDATE)

Once land has passed from the public domain into private ownership area is ALWAYS calculated by acreage.

"36.64 acres on west side and 41.30 acres on east side." Those don't appear to be halves to me...

Why is the drainage ditch where it is? It certainly doesn't look like a natural stream. Has someone been this way before?

If the drainage ditch is natural it will show up in the GLO plats, BTW.

Well, fellers you do it like this. You start on the north line. Find the midpoint from the road on the west to the RR on the east. Move 0.01 feet south. Repeat process. Move 0.01 feet south. Repeat process. Move........................... Arrive at south line. Find midpoint between east line of Lot 12 and east line of Lot 39. Voila. Precisely the east and west halves all along the line connecting these midpoints For better results, move 0.001 feet each time.:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( o.O

Is it possible that the father considered that the ditch or swale marked the "halves" of the Lot? It would be a plausible assumption on the part of a non-surveyor. The attorney might have thought he understood what the father meant, and didn't inquire any further.

With the parcels in separate ownership, a division line that didn't follow the swale would leave scraps of land on both sides that would be tough to farm. It seems unlikely that a farmer would want to divide land that way.

I'd agree. Anybody that farmed it would want the fields kept as split by the ditch. To clear it up I'd go the parties and get them to move the boundary to down the ditch. Family, might work, maybe not. Otherwise you have an ambiguity very hard to deal with (hence the original question).

To a farmer that owned the whole parcel you have west half (field) and an east half (field). But how do you know for sure?

I personally would not do any kind of description for a client that involved using halves, or the xxx feet east of or north of. Only thing I'll do is monument a line on the ground and then call to that. I'd even be reluctant to split a section by aliquot parts. Survey the boundary, monument the new split lines and go from there. Aliquot parts and protracted lines have caused immense problems. The only good thing to a seller is it's cheap (no survey needed). It's all down hill from there.

I'd probably would go with north of a monumented line, got one of them in the works (maybe). I don't like to leave the location of some split line in question as the original post question does.

OK Mr. Penry

What in your opinion is the correct answer to your original question? I know you've got other issues to deal with here, but I'd like to know how you'd answer your original question.

Thanks

RPlumb is right

Make the new boundary a metes and bounds line that follows the ditch.

OK Mr. Penry

Mr. Penry posted above...

> So our office called the attorney to get a clarification on what the intent was supposed to be. The attorney replied that the intent was to deed the entire Lot 39 and the "E 1/2" description was never supposed to be on the deed. I am sure he is charging by the hour...

Oh my aching back.

OK Mr. Penry

I saw that, but I'd still like his opinion on the original question as posed.