Community Forums

Share:

Section Subdivision  

Page 1 / 3

billvhill
Posts: 400
Member
(@billvhill)
250+ posts
Joined: 5 years ago

I am currently working on a 4 acre tract described as the E1/2S1/2S1/2SE1/4NE1/4 (330×660 a parcel adjacent to the 1/4 corner of the section) less the west 1 acre. The distance from the 1/4 corner to the NE corner of the section is 2656. The tracts as occupied to the north all seem to have 330 feet from north to south leaving the 16 feet on the last parcel and proportioning would move all these occupied tracts and an existing driveway to a tract to the west. It looks like the 1/4 corner was set at a fence line and cl of a road intersection. This fence then heads west at approximately N88W in which there is an existing driveway along the north side of the fence line and an easement which is described as being along the south boundary of the 4 acre tract (E-W center of section line) to the excepted 1 acre tract. There is also a ditch along the south side of this fence. A subdivision directly to the  south leaves the gap between the center of section and fence and makes no attempt to claim the occupied area. It makes no sense to me to cross this fence line to the center of section line.

I am planning to leave the extra 16 feet on the 4 acre tract and hold the fence line on the south. I can probably note this on the plat but I am having problems with the title since I am not using the center of section as the south boundary. I thought of using the  E1/2S1/2S1/2SE1/4NE1/4 as occupied but the fenced west boundary is 30 feet off because whoever marked the 1 acre tract measured 660 feet from the row fence on the road and not the centerline (section line). Maybe part of the E1/2S1/2S1/2SE1/4NE1/4.

Any Ideas 

I hope this makes sense

 

16 Replies
holy cow
Posts: 15034
Member
(@holy-cow)
10,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

Another $99 special.

The kind of survey where the client's very first words are:  "This one will be easy.  It's only 4 acres."

Reply
aliquot
Posts: 999
Member
(@aliquot)
500+ posts
Joined: 8 years ago

You know you are in trouble when you start out with a 1/2 of a 1/2.

You say the 1/4 section corner was set at a road and fence intersection, but really it was only reset there. 

You are comparing the fence line to the center of section line, but how are you determining the center of section line?  

In sections where surveyors and land owners have given up searching for original corner positions (either by original evidence or perpetuated locations), the aliquot part corners cease to be unique identifiers. In other words one parcel's 1/4 corner may not be the same as another's 1/4 corner, and it's really just a matter of evaluating occupations and the nearby modern survey history, unless of course there is a federal interest adjoiner. 

Reply
3 Replies
thebionicman
Member
(@thebionicman)
Joined: 5 years ago

2,500+ posts
Posts: 2995

Operations of law move boundaries between owners, but they do not move or multiply corners of the PLSS.

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

500+ posts
Posts: 999
Posted by: thebionicman

Operations of law move boundaries between owners, but they do not move or multiply corners of the PLSS.

I think you misunderstood me. My point was that in sections with no federal interest the properties may be described by aliquot parts, but their corners are no longer the actual aliquot part corners, and the corner of one property will not control the corner of a nearby but not adjacent property. 

Reply
billvhill
Member
(@billvhill)
Joined: 5 years ago

250+ posts
Posts: 400

Operations of law move boundaries between owners, but they do not move or multiply corners of the PLSS.

 

So are you saying a division of a section can't be moved. Wouldn't occupation be evidence of its original location regardless of the numbers.

Reply
Skeeter1996
Posts: 649
Member
(@skeeter1996)
500+ posts
Joined: 4 years ago

You'd think so, but I know of a case on the Sun River in Montana where the Court threw out original stone meander corners, ordered them destroyed and new corners put in.

To make matters worse the Court ordered $1 million in damages against the party that relied on the old stone corners.

Never say never when Lawyers ate involved

 

Reply
1 Reply
thebionicman
Member
(@thebionicman)
Joined: 5 years ago

2,500+ posts
Posts: 2995

I would like to read that one. Do you have anything that would get me to the correct case? 

Reply
holy cow
Posts: 15034
Member
(@holy-cow)
10,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

Half of 330 is 165 and half of that is 82.5.  Had an aliquot part description once that ideally would have been a nice rectangular 660 by 82.5.  It was among several others of similar dimensions.  We call them spaghetti farms.

Reply
Page 1 / 3