skwyd, post: 331691, member: 6874 wrote: On the other hand, if the ROW description just calls for an X foot ROW centered on the section line, then wherever the angle point in the ROW line falls is where it falls. And that may put the ROW angle point a significant distance before or after the 1/4 line.
That's my take on it too. If the deeds were written like below, then you would have the B-C jog:
But if it were one deed for the entire section... or one stating "a line 50 feet north of and parallel with the south line of section 16, then you'd have the "A" jog:
Dave Karoly, post: 331806, member: 94 wrote: I think Mighty Moe is correct.
What did the parties intend? Did they intend to create a little triangle or a jog in a fifty strip? I doubt it, that doesn't make sense.
Do you think they intended to have 5.06' break in their property line? Theoretically that requires constructing another fence brace panel.......
It's all in the wording. In the general case of a certain width right-of-way no one really worries about it because it takes a mighty big deflection to create a noticeable difference. So what if a bush hog cuts an extra three inches of grass for a couple of feet? Maybe a clod or two of dirt falls on that teeny little wedge from a backhoe bucket while repairing a culvert of something in the ditch.
On the other hand, when a deed is involved, the wording is no different from what we would do in a standard land division. This could result in the small jump at a property line.
I have a job in the hopper now with such an opportunity. No account gubmit surveyors in 1865 produced a section corner where the line headed northward therefrom runs about eight degrees to the east of north while the other lines are roughly cardinal. That is roughly a half a foot.
Dallas Morlan, post: 331741, member: 6020 wrote: Point C is on the 1/4 section line. Extending the ROW line from C to A will also inverse 50 feet from the section line only at points C and A. If the legal description is 50 feet that means at all points along the ROW and forces a short arc with line CA as a long chord.
You can write a description so that your intent is clear. But, in retracement, I tend to agree with Dallas. Holding a 50' R/W would create arcs on the outside angles. If the hwy dept had decided they want a 50' corridor to build and maintain a road, why would you give them more than 50'? They don't need it they don't want it, etc. If they are calling to a strip 25' each side of a centerline description, you might make your arc happen with a 25' radius centered around the centerline point where it meets the section line. Read the description.
While there is some good logic on practical construction practice, let's not lose sight of what it is we do.
Our job is to gather and evaluate the evidence then render an opinion. Part of that process is divining the intent of the Deed. Where the Deed clearly has one (and only one) meaning it will take a tall stack to overcome it. Our opinion of what the owners should have done adds nothing to the height of the stack. 'Intent' is what was written and done. Nothing more, nothing less
Rankin_File, post: 331819, member: 101 wrote: Do you think they intended to have 5.06' break in their property line? Theoretically that requires constructing another fence brace panel.......
But Rankin, the other solution also creates a jog, so you get another brace, of course in this case it's really close, so maybe set the brace inbetween. B-)
And I figure this isn't about property lines but about an easement line, most county roads I deal with are easements.
They are written so broadly that B would not be considered, the solution would be 50' north of the section line.
Mike Berry, post: 331816, member: 123 wrote: That's my take on it too. If the deeds were written like below, then you would have the B-C jog:
But if it were one deed for the entire section... or one stating "a line 50 feet north of and parallel with the south line of section 16, then you'd have the "A" jog:
I'd be pretty hesitant to set Point A. As soon as you do, a landowner will construct a fence from A to the north.
JBS
JBStahl, post: 331800, member: 427 wrote: It's a perfect place for an 8"x10" Creosote corner post with braces centered on the right of way line in both directions. Then some anal-retentive surveyor can set two pk nails on the top of the post to ensure that there is no misunderstanding by the landowners which square inch is theirs.
😉
JBS
the existing RR tie corner brace is 20.04 feet north and 8.04 feet east of the point "B" and has been in place since 1946...... 😛
MightyMoe, post: 331848, member: 700 wrote: But Rankin, the other solution also creates a jog, so you get another brace, of course in this case it's really close, so maybe set the brace inbetween. B-)
And I figure this isn't about property lines but about an easement line, most county roads I deal with are easements.
They are written so broadly that B would not be considered, the solution would be 50' north of the section line.
I agree on the easement is being the common right in these instances- but I still think that if the situation is 2 owners/ 2 deeds- I think you need to project the line to intersection with the boundary- just as you would if the 2 strips were differing width.- and I'm not buying the curve idea even a little bit.....
So why would that short curve be better than an angle point at A? The external has to under a foot.
In the original example, it seemed that Point "B" would not be set because it was more than 50.00'. However, does "B" come back into the scenario if the west side of the quarter section line is later extended out to 60.00'. Point "A" was where the monument was originally placed when both sides were at 50.00'? Most would place a monument at the intersection of each ROW line extended to the 1/4 section line.
Warren Smith, post: 331909, member: 9900 wrote: So why would that short curve be better than an angle point at A? The external has to under a foot.
I think the argument was that Point "A" was more than 50.00' and the curve took care of that. We are splitting hairs now.
For splitting hairs, why would the curve not begin at point C ? That would give the locus of points from which the nearest point on the section line is 50 ft away. (I'm assuming that the line to the north is perpendicular to the line from the west. Is that not so?)
In the 60 ft case, you could still invoke the curve from point C, since the line just east of point B is more than 50 ft from any place on the section line.
Let me say this a different way....
It is beyond our authority to inject our preferences and solutions where no problem exists. If the owner of the lands east of the 1/4 line sells a 50 foot wide strip and the owner west does the same there is no curve. There is no angle point east or west of the 1/4 line. If one owner and he sold a 50 foot strip there is one point at the fillet of the 50 feet. The list of possibilities is endless, nome of them include the imposition of our will on others. We follow evidence. We don't invent it to our liking
thebionicman, post: 331925, member: 8136 wrote: Let me say this a different way....
If the owner of the lands east of the 1/4 line sells a 50 foot wide strip and the owner west does the same there is no curve. There is no angle point east or west of the 1/4 line.
This sort of brings us back full circle to the original question of where should the monument(s) be placed on the quarter section line if both ROW's are created simultaneously and that 0.38' exists.
Bill93, post: 331918, member: 87 wrote: For splitting hairs, why would the curve not begin at point C ? That would give the locus of points from which the nearest point on the section line is 50 ft away. (I'm assuming that the line to the north is perpendicular to the line from the west. Is that not so?)
In the 60 ft case, you could still invoke the curve from point C, since the line just east of point B is more than 50 ft from any place on the section line.
My original intent was with stationing running west to east Point C is the P.C. and Point A is the P.T. of the curve. Working a bit with CAD proved the 1/4 line to the north can not be perpendicular to the line from the west. Also working from small triangle to larger the three lines (C/L west, 1/4 Section north and C/L east) do not intersect at one point. The radius point is near but not at the 1/4 section corner. Rounding error I'm sure but makes the problem more difficult.
J. Penry, post: 331902, member: 321 wrote:
I'm afraid, Jerry, that the truly anal-retentive surveyor would layout the curve with a fixed tangent of A-C and let the radius float. Then you can stake the PC of the curve (point C) and not have to worry about point B at all. For the extremely-retentive surveyors, they can stake the PT as well. 😉
JBS
J. Penry, post: 331913, member: 321 wrote: I think the argument was that Point "A" was more than 50.00' and the curve took care of that. We are splitting hairs now.
It's kinda awful but that has been discussed before (I think more engineers argue for the curves), it's been the convention here to fillet the angle points for CO RD row's.
Of course there is a curve there to be perfectly "correct" however, the old guys would lay out CR stones at the angle and of course they hold over even right of way width.
I've always continued the practice of monumenting the angle point.
Actually, I argue that the angle point is more correct for county roads since the centerline was angled, if it's curved then a curve gets done for the row.
Almost all the Co. Roads I know of were done by County Commissioners and when you get the old documents and plats that created them it's clear that the right of way angles with the centerline, could be a kinked section line or old surveyed centerline, but not at intersecting property ownership.
However this one may be different, different state and all. We aren't seeing the creating document.
MightyMoe, post: 331944, member: 700 wrote:
Almost all the Co. Roads I know of were done by County Commissioners and when you get the old documents and plats that created them it's clear that the right of way angles with the centerline, could be a kinked section line or old surveyed centerline, but not at intersecting property ownership.
However this one may be different, different state and all. We aren't seeing the creating document.
In my little part of the world the questions is, What Records? So far I haven't been able to locate any, the county officials don't even believe they exist.
So I find it sort of a amusing discussion over this 0.38 feet and whether to add a curve or what. All I usually have is the road where it exists now and new and old fences. Most of our county roads are only easement. Even the ones that are deeded don't have very precise descriptions. Then the next thing is most of the section corners in the valley have no historical record and seem to get up and move with each new surveyors attempt, accept fence corner, proportion, witching, whatever. Thinking about it maybe just having the existing road is a good thing, but it amazes me how many can't see where it is and won't honor the physical location.
