Double quarter Corners (Land Surveying)

by LRDay @, South Central Utah, Monday, October 31, 2011, 18:37 (1311 days ago)

Doing a survey for a couple brothers that need to split ownership to pass to their families. The land was surveyed/resurveyed by the GLO in 1915. Its in Section 1. The west half of the section was included in an 1856 subdivision that ended without going to the township line so that's why the GLO was back in 1915. Section 1, T16S, R3E, SLM. So in the the cleanup 1915 survey they set a pipe and cap for the South Quarter Corner of Section 1 and another about 2 chains away for the North Quarter Corner of Section 12. Both markers are there in good condition, the owner took me to them. Both markers are about a rod north of an old east west fence. There is no fence going south and the same owner owns both sides of the quarter section line going south through Section 12 (State of Utah). There is a boundary with different owners on both sides of the quarter section line going north through Section 1. The one pipe and cap is out in the open, you couldn't miss it. The other pipe and cap is in juniper trees, not hard to find (if you knew to look) but not in plain sight either. This land has been in the same families for at least 70 years. The guy that showed me the markers (owner) said the fence going north has been there at least 70 years (about his age). They have always thought it was the boundary (the pipe and cap is in the fence line). So guess which pipe and cap is in the fence line going north through Section 1. Yup, marked ¼ Sec 12.

Double quarter Corners

by Loyal @, Evanston, Wyoming, Monday, October 31, 2011, 18:46 (1311 days ago) @ LRDay

What does the guy on the OTHER side of the fence say?

Does he know about both monuments too?

):
Loyal

Avatar

Double quarter Corners

by Dave Karoly, Sacramento, CA, Monday, October 31, 2011, 19:19 (1311 days ago) @ Loyal

Yeah, me too?

Double quarter Corners

by LRDay @, South Central Utah, Monday, October 31, 2011, 19:40 (1311 days ago) @ Loyal

I haven't spoke with the other side owner, just started the survey today. My client has the extra dirt (inside the fence). I don't know if it's going to be problem or not. The land is just dry sheep pasture. A new fence would cost more than the gain. I will need to decide where I'm going to show the boundary though. My first impression is to just use the GLO markers as they exist for the section and show where the fences are. I'll run it by the landowners before I mark anything to see if they will accept this. If not then they will have to work it out before I can finish the survey. What my clients are focused on is a spit line to divide their 150 acres. They don't seem interested in starting a fight with their long standing neighbors. Both of these parties own a LOT of land.

Anyone who wants to see the plat can find it at the Utah BLM Cadastral page. T 16 S, R 3 E, SLM.

Double quarter Corners

by LRDay @, South Central Utah, Saturday, September 29, 2012, 16:20 (977 days ago) @ Loyal

Update about a year later.

Going to finish this survey now.

Both landowners along the line that goes to the incorrect quarter corner say the fence is and always has been the line. Neither one wants anything but the fence as the line.

So what should a surveyor do?

Avatar

Double quarter Corners

by RADAR ⌂ @, Puyallup WA, Saturday, September 29, 2012, 18:49 (977 days ago) @ LRDay

So what should a surveyor do?

What JB Stahl said

All said, however, it's still going to be up to the two landowners to decide what they want to do to fix the issue. Do they want to move their boundary (adjustment), or do they want to move their fence, or do they want to continue living with the knowledge that their fence isn't on the boundary. In either case, the surveyor can provide the necessary documentation.

JBS


Or maybe what Richard Schaut Said

Using the tract segregation and document reformation process refered to in Chap 6 of the '73 manual as a guide, but following your state laws; keep the legal boundaries as fixed by the occupation lines, and correct the inaccurate description.

Richard Schaut

;-)

Dugger

I have a hard time with: It's the aliquot line because that's what the owners want it to be, pattern of thought. If you, as a surveyor, know that it is not, then it isn't. The owners can own whatever thay want, but they shouldn't be able to call it the aliquot line if it isn't.

--
I never did a day's work in my life. It was all fun.--Thomas A. Edison



Citius, altius, fortius

Double quarter Corners

by Carl Zeiss, Monday, October 31, 2011, 19:07 (1311 days ago) @ LRDay

I'm unaware of anything in the Instructions or Manual providing for the GLO setting incongruous quarter corners between sections 1 and 12. Was the survey of section 12 completed to the east township line in the original 1856 survey?

Carl

by Loyal @, Evanston, Wyoming, Monday, October 31, 2011, 19:12 (1311 days ago) @ Carl Zeiss

I have seen dozens of these over the years.

The reasons vary somewhat, and the Special Instructions are usually the key to the analysis and understanding of the situation.

It depends...
Loyal

Carl

by Carl Zeiss, Monday, October 31, 2011, 19:26 (1311 days ago) @ Loyal

I thought we were the ones here in the First Meridian Survey who were thought to be prehistoric because we had double corners on township lines. Looks like we are in better shape here in some ways.

Double quarter Corners

by aliquot @, Calgary,AB or Fairbanks,AK, Tuesday, November 01, 2011, 06:28 (1310 days ago) @ Carl Zeiss

I'm unaware of anything in the Instructions or Manual providing for the GLO setting incongruous quarter corners between sections 1 and 12. Was the survey of section 12 completed to the east township line in the original 1856 survey?

...and yet it happens fairly often. Hopefully the land owners will all agree to use the correct 1/4 corner and not be to worried about the location of the fence. If not, does your jurisdiction allow relatively pain free lot line adjustments? Regardless of where you decide to show the property boundaries I would make sure to show the quarter line in the correct place.

Double quarter Corners

by Carl Zeiss, Tuesday, November 01, 2011, 11:18 (1310 days ago) @ aliquot

I probably wasn't clear enough. My comment was only about double quarter corners interior to townships, which were purposely created by the GLO.

I think it's clear that subsequent surveyors can set additional "corners". Seen enough of those.

Avatar

Double quarter Corners

by Brian Allen @, Preston, Id, Monday, October 31, 2011, 19:23 (1311 days ago) @ LRDay

Leon,

For your library, here's a case with similar circumstances from Akansas. It is an acquiescence case though.

Thurlkill v Wood

Double quarter Corners

by paulplatano, Monday, October 31, 2011, 20:21 (1311 days ago) @ LRDay

Is one 1/4 corner at 40 chains north of the section corner
and the other 40 chains prorated?

Double quarter Corners

by LRDay @, South Central Utah, Monday, October 31, 2011, 20:32 (1311 days ago) @ paulplatano

Best explanation is to look at the plat. I'll try to link it. Look at Sections 1 and 12. Lots of LOTS.


PLAT

Double quarter Corners

by Richard Schaut, Tuesday, November 01, 2011, 06:44 (1310 days ago) @ LRDay

Using the tract segregation and document reformation process refered to in Chap 6 of the '73 manual as a guide, but following your state laws; keep the legal boundaries as fixed by the occupation lines, and correct the inaccurate description.

Richard Schaut

Imperial Entanglements

by Loyal @, Evanston, Wyoming, Tuesday, November 01, 2011, 06:56 (1310 days ago) @ LRDay

I'd be very careful about getting too creative in this case (Imperial Entanglements).

Lot 9 (fka SW¼ SW¼) Section 1, and all of Section 12 are Reserved FEDERAL Minerals. Whatever you decide, I would run it by BLM Cadastral in Salt Lake before finalizing it.

Loyal

Imperial Entanglements

by Pablo, Wyoming, Tuesday, November 01, 2011, 08:04 (1310 days ago) @ Loyal

Whoa pard. Seems like you have only one side of the fence opinion. Go talk to the owner on the other side. A fence of convenience for the mere grazin of prairie maggots to keep them from dyin does not sit right with my owner on the other side. What about the waterin hole a half mile north that we been usin. The fence was built by a mistake in identification.

Pablo

Avatar

Imperial Entanglements

by Dave Karoly, Sacramento, CA, Tuesday, November 01, 2011, 08:08 (1310 days ago) @ Loyal

Even without the Federal mineral issue, the default for me would be to use the correct monuments. I'm not saying it can't be the fence but usually in those situations the fences aren't all that accurate as far as staying on line anyway. The fence is there to keep in livestock and not necessarily to be an exact representation of the boundary.

That's just me and keeping in mind our California Courts have made it very difficult to prove a fence is an implied BLA or acquiescence. You need solid direct evidence of an agreement which defeats the whole purpose of the doctrines (who remembers 1912) or the property owners can take action to fix it on the fence today if they so desire. Obviously Utah is different.

Avatar

Imperial Entanglements

by jud ⌂ @, Lexington, OR 97839, Tuesday, November 01, 2011, 09:33 (1310 days ago) @ Dave Karoly

Be very careful of that existing fence, was it only a convenience fence and someone is there who will claim so or was it intended to be an ownership claim and can you find dependable evidence for that? 70 years ago is not that old in the GLO system, the GLO lines are fixed and probably called for in the patent.
jud

Imperial Entanglements

by paulplatano, Tuesday, November 01, 2011, 11:50 (1310 days ago) @ Dave Karoly

"The fence is there to keep in livestock .."

How could such heresy be spoken in the surveying community?

Avatar

Imperial Entanglements

by Dave Karoly, Sacramento, CA, Tuesday, November 01, 2011, 21:31 (1310 days ago) @ paulplatano

I reviewed and I think that statement was assumed by me; so it may or may not be true.

In California if the owners wanted to make the fence the boundary then we would most likely do a boundary line adjustment but it is possible the fence is the boundary already.

Avatar

Double quarter Corners

by JBStahl ⌂ @, Salt Lake City, Utah, Tuesday, November 01, 2011, 10:15 (1310 days ago) @ LRDay

Making a mutual mistake when attempting to erect a fence along the boundary, doesn't establish the boundary. Waiting for an excess of 20 years to discover the mistake, might. In this case, the evidence is pretty clear that a mutual (and common) mistake was made. Had the owners known there was another quarter corner, they would have relied upon it. That evidence would likely overcome any presumption of an agreement which would establish the boundary.

All said, however, it's still going to be up to the two landowners to decide what they want to do to fix the issue. Do they want to move their boundary (adjustment), or do they want to move their fence, or do they want to continue living with the knowledge that their fence isn't on the boundary. In either case, the surveyor can provide the necessary documentation.

JBS

--
*** May your boundaries fall in pleasant places *** Ps. 16:6
http://www.cplsinc.com/id1.html

Avatar

Double quarter Corners

by jud ⌂ @, Lexington, OR 97839, Tuesday, November 01, 2011, 10:49 (1310 days ago) @ JBStahl

:good:
jud

Avatar

Double quarter Corners

by Dave Karoly, Sacramento, CA, Tuesday, November 01, 2011, 10:19 (1310 days ago) @ LRDay

I'm about to fly over it.

I will take a look on my way by :-)

Double Section Corners 1-2/11-12

by LRDay @, South Central Utah, Wednesday, November 02, 2011, 12:07 (1309 days ago) @ LRDay

There is also a closing corner for the NW Cor of Section 12. Both markers there in open field (deer/elk pasture). Doing static sessions on both corners right now. A two-fur, I get the bounty for two corners with one site visit. Made a profit for the day.

Seems the GLO guys are human. Both corners are in R3E. One of the caps is stamped R4E. I suppose we all get lost once in a while.

Avatar

Double Section Corners 1-2/11-12

by linebender @, Wednesday, November 02, 2011, 17:24 (1309 days ago) @ LRDay

A very important difference maker for me when it comes to accepting the fence as the best evidence of the original line is when the original monument no longer exists. So here I would have to say the monument is the best evidence of the original line. (sharp as a tack ain't I?) I don't beleive a surveyor is allowed to make an alternate boundary determination here. A further exchange of deeds can make the fence the boundary.

Double Section Corners 1-2/11-12

by LRDay @, South Central Utah, Wednesday, November 02, 2011, 17:49 (1309 days ago) @ linebender

That's pretty much where I'm at. No doubt where the original government line is located. If the landowners want to do something different they can, but I'm not going to unilaterally move the line to the fence. At the same time if the landowners won't accept the original line (go back) and won't agree then the survey goes into the to be finished later file. When they work it out I finish it. I'm not a bulldozer, like to believe I'm more of a solution catalyst. I really don't think there is a major problem here, just an old mistake that needs to be resolved now that it has been revealed. I'm betting on the accept the original line and continue to use the fences as is. If they ever want to rebuild the fence they can move it to the line but it's not my decision.

If I was the landowner I'd say OK, I'll give up any claim to the land on my side of the fence if you will pay for and build the new fence. There is no improvements here that will be disturbed, it's just a dry sheep pasture on both sides of the fence. We don't have a new owner from New York that just plunked down a bunch of money and wants every square inch they can make claim to. Just sheep ranchers that been neighbors all their lives, but you never know all the history.

Avatar

linebender

by Keith, On the Central Coast of California, Sunday, September 30, 2012, 09:21 (976 days ago) @ linebender

I agree with the fact that a fence line should not be accepted for the boundary of an aliquot part, if in fact the corner monument is in existence that controls that boundary.

It is not my experience to deal with exchanging deeds to make the fence line the boundary, but would seem to be the solution here.

It does seem like the GLO could have done the completion survey better and could have avoided the double set of corners that they created at the 1/4 between secs. 1 and 12.

They held to a straight (yes straight north-south line) line beginning at the common corner of secs. 13, 14, 23 and 24; going NORTH to an intersection (cc) with a new sec. line between secs. 1 and 12. This left the double set of 1/4 core., which normally is avoided if possible. They created many lots and could have had more lots with common corners.

The double set of corners is what is causing the problem now, as the land owners did not know the difference and went with the monument that was easily seen. As I understand this, the landowners went with the wrong corner monument, built a fence and now want to keep the fence as their boundary.

Therefore, it would seem like the fence can be their boundary, but their land descriptions (aliquot parts) will necessarily have to be changed to metes and bounds descriptions.

It is an entirely different matter then accepting the fence as the boundary between aliquot part descriptions when the corner monuments are missing.

And this is not the INDEPENDENT RESURVEY procedure of changing the aliquot part descriptions to tracts, as a former poster would have said.

That's how I see it anyway.

Keith

--
Check us out here...... http://www.ccwwa.org/

Avatar

linebender

by RADAR ⌂ @, Puyallup WA, Sunday, September 30, 2012, 10:07 (976 days ago) @ Keith

:good:

--
I never did a day's work in my life. It was all fun.--Thomas A. Edison



Citius, altius, fortius

UPDATE - Double quarter Corners

by LRDay @, South Central Utah, Saturday, September 29, 2012, 16:23 (977 days ago) @ LRDay

Update about a year later.

Going to finish this survey now.

Both landowners along the line that goes to the incorrect quarter corner say the fence is and always has been the line. Neither one wants anything but the fence as the line.

So what should a surveyor do?

Let's look at Utah Law

by LRDay @, South Central Utah, Sunday, September 30, 2012, 12:30 (976 days ago) @ LRDay

Here is a 2011 opinion by the Utah Supreme Court

Bahr V. Imus

So let's look at acquiesence. Does my case meet all 4 requirements?

B. Boundary by Acquiescence

¶ 35 The doctrine of boundary by acquiescence is rooted in policy considerations of "avoiding litigation and promoting stability in landownership." Staker v. Ainsworth, 785 P.2d 417, 423 (Utah 1990). It "derives from [the] realization, ancient in our law, that peace and good order of society [are] best served by leaving at rest possible disputes over long established boundaries." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). A successful invocation of boundary by acquiescence requires a showing of the following four elements: "(1) occupation up to a visible line marked by monuments, fences, or buildings, (2) mutual acquiescence in the line as a boundary, (3) for a long period of time, (4) by adjoining landowners."[7] Id. at 420 (internal quotation marks omitted).

¶ 36 The first element may be satisfied where land up to the visible, purported boundary line is farmed, occupied by homes or other structures, improved, irrigated, used to raise livestock, or put to similar use. See id. In evaluating whether this element is satisfied, courts should consider whether a particular "occupation up to a visible line" would place a reasonable party on notice that the given line was being treated as the boundary between the properties.

¶ 37 The second element is satisfied where neighboring owners "recognize 66*66 and treat an observable line, such as a fence, as the boundary dividing the owner's property from the adjacent landowner's property." Ault v. Holden, 2002 UT 33, ¶ 19, 44 P.3d 781. This element is met where neighbors do not "behave[] in a fashion inconsistent with the belief" that a given line is the boundary between their properties. Staker, 785 P.2d at 420. Failure by the record title owner to "suggest or imply" that the dividing line between the properties is "not in the proper location" suggests acquiescence. Judd Family Ltd. P'ship v. Hutchings, 797 P.2d 1088, 1090 (Utah 1990). Nonacquiescence in a boundary would be signaled where, for example, a landowner notifies the adjoining landowner of her disagreement over the boundary, or takes action inconsistent with recognition of a given line as the boundary, such as tearing "down significant portions of [a] fence and, without objection by [the adjoining landowner], proceed[ing] to plant trees and shrubs, store firewood, and construct a chain link fence in a different location." See Staker, 785 P.2d at 421.

¶ 38 To satisfy the third element, an unbroken period of no less than twenty years must pass during which each of the other elements is continuously met.[8] See id. at 420; see also Parsons v. Anderson, 690 P.2d 535, 539 (Utah 1984) (explaining that fifteen years of mutual acquiescence was insufficient). To satisfy the fourth element, "the parcels involved" must be "contiguous." Staker, 785 P.2d at 420.

Let's look at MORE Utah Law

by LRDay @, South Central Utah, Sunday, September 30, 2012, 17:09 (976 days ago) @ LRDay

Let's look at MORE Utah Law

by LRDay @, South Central Utah, Sunday, September 30, 2012, 18:12 (976 days ago) @ LRDay

I've been concerned about this issue. Looks like I found the answer.

2009 Utah Opinion - The boundary doesn't need to be unknown for acquiescence

¶ 3 Under Utah's boundary by acquiescence doctrine, a party is no longer required to establish that the true boundary is "unknown," as Florence v. Hiline Equipment Co., 581 P.2d 998, 1000 (Utah 1978), required, see Ault v. Holden, 2002 UT 33, ¶ 19, 44 P.3d 781, or that there is "objective uncertainty" regarding the true boundary, Staker v. Ainsworth, 785 P.2d 417, 424 (Utah 1990) ("overrul[ing] the fifth [boundary by acquiescence] requirement of objective uncertainty contained in Halladay v. Cluff"). See Halladay v. Cluff, 685 P.2d 500, 503-05 (Utah 1984). Instead, to establish boundary by acquiescence, a party must establish only four elements: "(i) occupation up to a visible line marked by monuments, fences, or buildings, (ii) mutual acquiescence in the line as a boundary, (iii) for a long period of time, (iv) by adjoining landowners." RHN Corp., 2004 UT 60, ¶ 23, 96 P.3d 935 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). See id. 30 (stating the "long period of time" element mean(s) at least twenty years).

And this tidbit:

Ault v. Holden, 2002 UT 33, ¶ 20, 44 P.3d 781 (stating that record property owners "must . . . take some action manifesting that they do not acquiesce"); id. ¶ 19 (indicating acquiescence may be shown "regardless of whether the landowner knows where the actual boundary lies or whether the boundary is uncertain"); Lane, 505 P.2d at 1200 (indicating a landowner may "'consent by silence,'" or inaction when "a fence. . . appears to be a boundary").

RSS Feed of thread