Excuse me, but you just stepped in…
….said that little voice in my head.
1860, GLO survey subdivided township into sections, appears to have been a diligent effort in pre-Benson era.
1948, first recorded retracement of area, finds all section and 1/4 corners. Proceeds to locate and monument C-1/4 and several 1/16th corners. Appears to be good work performed by RE. Note that at S 1/4 corner he finds an old post in stone mound on fence line.
1963-1970, yes seven years. The BLM performs a dependent resurvey of this and 4 other sections in the area. USA owns the SW quarter and a 40 in the SE quarter. They accept all of the same monuments as the 1948 survey did, except for the S 1/4. At this corner they state: “no original evidence found”. Plus they don’t even acknowledge the existence of the 1948 record and its measurements to the found post and MOS. They set a corner at proportionate distance and also subdivide the section. At the C-1/4 and 1/16th corners they set monuments and don’t even acknowledge the 1948 monuments exist.
1970-1976 a series of surveys and deed splits occur in the east half of the section. All of the surveys reference and tie the 1948 location of the N-S centerline. Interestingly, none of these recorded surveys acknowledge the BLM locations or a 1974 subdivision map in the NW quarter.
1974, the NW quarter of the section is subdivided into a suburbia. 1/3 acre parcels and lots of them with roads, streets, etc. This subdivision utilizes the BLM N-S centerline for its eastern boundary. The map does not acknowledge the existence of the 1948 survey, monuments or subsequent surveys and parcel maps reliant thereon.
2017, Stupid me says sure, I’ll survey your properties to 2 owners of lands split by deed in the east half of the section immediately adjacent to the N-S centerline. In the field I find that the 1974 subdivision on the east is well monumented and well fenced. I find that none of the deed split parcels on the east side are either monumented or fenced.
At the S-1/4 I found the BLM monument. I then measured to where the 1948 survey said they found a post and mound of stone and found an old and well embedded mound of stone exactly where they said it was…..110′ east of the BLM proportioned corner/monument..
So, long story short. I am of the opinion that the 1948 surveyor found the original 1/4 corner and properly located the aliquot subdivision lines. Pouring over the BLM field notes it would appear not that the BLM rejected this 1/4 corner, but rather they somehow missed it both in the field and in the county’s records.
I’ve got my thoughts on how best to approach this issue. I also discussed it with 2 of my peers and got 2 completely different answers, neither of which follows my line of thinking. Considering this is California and not Utah, considering common law and Calif. case and statute law guidance, and considering my goal is to prevent litigation and undue process and expense while still providing the path towards clarity of title, my thoughts wander back to those words of wisdom often asked by one of my earliest mentors; “so, you want to be a surveyor?”
As a parting thought, with the number of homes and parcels this tale of 2 lines affects, my interview of those most directly affected revealed no one knew there was any issue. Remarkably, this situation has existed for over 40 years with no clouds of title rising to the view of those owners and those who insured their land purchases.
Log in to reply.