Community Forums

Share:

Is it X or is it Y?  

Page 1 / 2

FL/GA PLS.
Posts: 3902
Member
(@flga-pls-2-2)
2,500+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

 

Deed description: North 2640 feet of the E 1/2 of Section A, TWP B, Range C etc.  All 9 corners monumented, parent parcel, entire section, owned by one entity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surveyor X: Survey's a line 2640' South of, perpendicular to and parallel with the North line and intersects lines in the SE 1/4 to achieve the 2640' and provides a survey drawing.
-------------------------------------------
Surveyor Y: Disagrees and issues a survey of the NE ¼.
--------------------------------------------
Which Surveyor is correct? Twisted  

 

14 Replies
Peter Ehlert
Posts: 2845
Member
(@peter-ehlert)
2,500+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

going out for some popcorn, anybody wanna ride along?

 

 

 

Reply
holy cow
Posts: 15679
Member
(@holy-cow)
10,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

First thing to keep in mind is that this has clearly left government interest.  Once that happens, the single owner of the entire section can pretty much do whatever they want.  The so-called center corner no longer applies, so can be ignored, unless called for, which in the above description it is not.  The quarter corners no longer are of concern to this section unless the single owner wishes to deed something out by specifically referencing them, which in the above description they are not.  The rules from the "cookbook" no longer apply.  I can think of center corners that bend over 100 feet from a straight line connecting the north and south quarter corners, for example.   To do what the above deed description says would also ignore previously determined locations of the north and south quarter corners. 

Draw a straight line from southwest corner to southeast corner.  Do the same from the northwest corner to the northeast corner.  Temporarily ignore the true north and south section lines.  Draw a line from the midpoint of the new north to the midpoint of the new south.  Trim/extend that line to the true north and south section lines.  That will be the west boundary of the called for east half.  Now draw a line from the northeast corner of the section to the southeast corner of the section, while ignoring the true section lines.  Measure south 2640 feet along that line.  Go to the new center line and measure south 2640 feet from the north end of that line.  Connect those two points with a line.  Trim/extend the east end of that line to be on the true section line.  You are done, once you write a very carefully worded metes and bounds description to confirm your boundaries.  The biggest argument will come from those concerned because the south line of your tract is not perfectly parallel with the true north section line.  The thing to remember is that the portion of the true north section line may not be a single, straight line if the new corner constructed falls to the west of the original north quarter corner.  The same thing happens with the new east boundary if the distance falls to the south of the true east quarter corner.  It is very possible this tract may have six sides or five sides.  It could be four-sided, depending on the relative lengths and internal angles of the original section.

You must reference the true quarter corners and section corners but you are no longer bound to the aliquot rules.  To start, assume this is in a Section 7 where the northwest quarter is much larger/smaller in both north/south and east/west dimensions compared to a standard section.

Area is not to be a factor in determining east half/west half of the section as you have no method of determining such a line without arbitrarily making one side of the section controlling over the others.

Prepare to defend your methodology in court at some time in the future.

Reply
3 Replies
Bill93
Member
(@bill93)
Joined: 9 years ago

5,000+ posts
Posts: 5725
Posted by: @holy-cow

The quarter corners no longer are of concern to this section unless the single owner wishes to deed something out by specifically referencing them, which in the above description they are not.

I'm going to be surprised if many agree that the north quarter corner and center don't control, given that the description uses what appears to be an aliquot type of description "E 1/2".  The main argument would be whether the intention was 2640 or N 1/2.

Reply
holy cow
Member
(@holy-cow)
Joined: 9 years ago

10,000+ posts
Posts: 15679

@bill93

Must disagree.  I have seen far too many cases where something like the east half of the northwest quarter of a Section 7 means half and half, not Lot 3 and the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter to one buyer and Lots 4 & 5 to the other buyer.  The aliquots CAN disappear once they are all owned by the same entity.  It comes down to exactly what the client wants to achieve (perhaps nearly identical area).  Sometimes we can explain the problem up front and sometimes we have to do most of the surveying to show the client their options to determine true intent.

Some clients need a great deal of explaining before it starts to sink in.

In my part of the world many of the old aliquot lines would closely agree with fences and large tree rows.  The client surely would prefer to honor those as closely as possible.  But, in the Great Plains regions, for example, there may be absolutely nothing other than the nine monuments the OP mentioned to identify where the subject section is.  In that case, four straight lines would probably be what the client was thinking would happen.

A big problem with the OP is what happens when the northeast quarter is far smaller than the southeast quarter as can easily happen in Sections 1-6.  Do you keep measuring along the west line of the original southeast quarter, which is probably not at the same bearing as the west line of the original northeast quarter?  Do you also introduce a similar kink along the two portions of the east section line?

E1/2 is used by the layman frequently but they have no idea what that means to surveyors.  I have seen them try to do this with a tract that has no single definition of what would be an east half or a west half.  Many weirdly shaped lots in a subdivision with curvy streets are an example of where the client doesn't have a clue as to why saying "East Half" is a problem.

 

BTW, the north half of the east half is not necessarily the northeast quarter.

Reply
aliquot
Member
(@aliquot)
Joined: 8 years ago

1,000+ posts
Posts: 1180

@holy-cow

You are right, the owner can divide his section anyway he likes, and the C1/4 was not called for here, but...

The E1/2 has a very well established meaning in the PLSS, and although there are a few renowned exceptions, and local courts can be unpredictable, time after time the courts consider , absent any evidence to the contrary,  a call for an aliqout  part to be a call to all the known and published rules associated with the PLSS.

I do agree though, that assumption dosen't apply to the North 2640 feet. In  cases like this, where there is no use of PLSS terminology, it would be a stretch to assume the intent was anything other than what the words in the deed say. Of course the contrary can be proven in this case, and decisions can be found to the contrary. 

In other words absent any other information, I would survey a line parallel with and 2640 feet southerly, measured perpendicularly to, the north section line. This line would run from the east section line to the intersection with a line run between the south and north 1/4 corners.

Is that what X did? I don't know what, "intersects lines in the SE 1/4 " means. 

Reply
Dave Karoly
Posts: 10509
Member
(@dave-karoly)
10,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

I'll go out on a limb...Surveyor X is correct (given the information provided by the OP).

Reply
MightyMoe
Posts: 6293
Member
(@mightymoe)
5,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

X

Also, he was there first. 

Reply
1 Reply
aliquot
Member
(@aliquot)
Joined: 8 years ago

1,000+ posts
Posts: 1180

@mightymoe

yeah, once an interpretation has been surveyed and established on the ground, it becomes harder to justify an alternative interpretation, unless the first interpretation is clearly wrong. 

Reply
Page 1 / 2
Default
:)
:d
:wink:
:mrgreen:
:neutral:
:twisted:
:arrow:
:shock:
:???:
:cool:
:evil:
:oops:
:razz:
:roll:
:cry:
:eek:
:lol:
:mad:
:sad:
:!:
:?:
:idea:
:hmm:
:beg:
:whew:
:chuckle:
:silly:
:envy:
:shutmouth: