1. How to get logged in to the NEW SurveyorConnect.com!

    You should have received a password reset notification at the email address you used to register your account here. If you don't receive the email, please check your spam or junk folder. If you still don't have it, please click the following link to manually reset your password. If all else fails, send us an email at support@surveyorconnect.com.

    [ CLICK HERE TO RESET YOUR PASSWORD ]

Double quarter Corners

Discussion in 'General Land Surveying' started by LRDay, Oct 31, 2011.

  1. LRDay

    LRDay 4-Year Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,957
    Location:
    Sanpete County, Utah
    Licensed in:
    UT
    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.
     
  2. Loyal

    Loyal 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,570
    Location:
    Evanston, Wyoming
    What does the guy on the OTHER side of the fence say?

    Does he know about both monuments too?

    ):
    Loyal
     
  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    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?
     
  4. Loyal

    Loyal 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,570
    Location:
    Evanston, Wyoming
    Carl

    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
     
  5. Dave Karoly

    Dave Karoly 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    6,450
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    Licensed in:
    CA
    Yeah, me too?
     
  6. Brian Allen

    Brian Allen 4-Year Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,210
    Location:
    Preston, Id
    Leon,

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

    Thurlkill v Wood
     
  7. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Carl

    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.
     
  8. LRDay

    LRDay 4-Year Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,957
    Location:
    Sanpete County, Utah
    Licensed in:
    UT
    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.
     
  9. paulplatano

    paulplatano 4-Year Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    299
    Is one 1/4 corner at 40 chains north of the section corner
    and the other 40 chains prorated?
     
  10. LRDay

    LRDay 4-Year Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,957
    Location:
    Sanpete County, Utah
    Licensed in:
    UT
    Best explanation is to look at the plat. I'll try to link it. Look at Sections 1 and 12. Lots of LOTS.


    PLAT
     
  11. aliquot

    aliquot 3-Year Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    113
    Location:
    Calgary,AB or Fairbanks,AK
    > 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.
     
  12. Richard Schaut

    Richard Schaut 4-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2010
    Messages:
    273
    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
     
  13. Loyal

    Loyal 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,570
    Location:
    Evanston, Wyoming
    Imperial Entanglements

    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
     
  14. Pablo

    Pablo 4-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    455
    Location:
    Wyoming
    Imperial Entanglements

    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
     
  15. Dave Karoly

    Dave Karoly 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    6,450
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    Licensed in:
    CA
    Imperial Entanglements

    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.
     
  16. jud

    jud 4-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,950
    Location:
    Lexington, OR 97839
    Imperial Entanglements

    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
     
  17. JBStahl

    JBStahl 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,161
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    Licensed in:
    MT, UT
    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
     
  18. Dave Karoly

    Dave Karoly 5-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    6,450
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    Licensed in:
    CA
    I'm about to fly over it.

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

    jud 4-Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,950
    Location:
    Lexington, OR 97839
    :good:
    jud
     
  20. Guest

    Guest Guest

    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.
     

Share This Page