Wood v. Mandrilla

[LS_8750]

First of all, does anybody have an e-copy of this opinion they could post? It seems mine is lost.

Secondly, this topic has been covered in earlier threads as follows:

http://www.californiasurveyors.org/clsa ... php?t=3127
http://www.californiasurveyors.org/clsa ... .php?t=447


I am attempting to keep the general Wood v. Mandrilla topic fresh because I am finding some interesting situations:

Example 1: I am looking at the east half of the NW1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 1. Research shows that the NW1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 1 was homesteaded back in 1887 or so. This piece of land was cut up in the 1960s, the source of my "east half". Lacking any evidence to the contrary, it seems that this east half should mean half the area of the whole NW1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 1 in accordance with the Opinion, unless another rule of thumb exists out there in the CLSA forum.

Example 2: I am looking at an un-recorded map from 1949 showing the north half of the NW1/4 of Section 12. The NE1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 12 is shown as split in half, by federal rules, with monuments set equidistant between the north 1/4 corner and W 1/16 corner between 1/12 on the north end and equidistant between the center NW 1/16 corner and the N 1/16 corner on the south end. These monuments are indeed in place as of today. ..... So, All but the "east half" of the NE1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 12 was split up as shown on a 1964 R/S map following directly in the footsteps of the 1949 un-recorded map. I am working on this "east half", and the "east half" does not equal the "west half" by area per the Opinion. I'm chasing deeds to see if I can gather any insight as to the intent of the split. In the event that I do not find such evidence, I then find myself in a position where the dividing line between the east and west halves of the NE1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 12 as monumented (by distance) do not agree with the instructions of the Opinion (by area). The split took place before the maps, so I don't see how I can use the maps as showing intent. The Opinion leads me to suggest that the dividing line as monumented in 1949 is not located correctly.

It seems both cases described above fall under the guidance of Wood v. Mandrilla, unless there exists some evidence showing intent that I have not yet discovered.


Half by distance makes sense. It was a brilliant method. But this is California.

Half by area opens doors to all kinds of possibilities, weighted mean bearing being the most obvious choice as a rule of thumb (I guess), but I don't see why other methods may not suffice as well.

What are we really supposed to do in such cases?

Cheers!

[bruce hall]

the thread.

[bruce hall]

the court was "did the plat indicate the line dividing the east and west halves of this fractional quarter section(woods' idea), or is line to be established by the "Revised Statutes of the Congress of the USA.(mandrilla's idea)"

The court ruled out the dividing line using the plat cause the east half had 80 acres and the west half had 98 acres. Didn't seem right to them. Also the dividing line was never monumented by the government.

Below is just an excerpt:
Section 2397(of the revised statutes) provides the following " in every case of the division of a quarter section the line for the division thereof is run north and south, and the corners and contents of half quarter sections, which may therafter be sold, shall be ascertained in the manner and on the principles directed and prescribed by the section preceding...."

Anyway, the section preceeding this states that the establishing of the 16th corner is on the quarter section line and equidistant from the applicable quarter corners. Half by distance.

All the lines are parallel in this particular quarter section, therefore two halves of equal area would be created.

The court did not cut the quarter section up by area, they used the revised statutes or the rule as to government surveys. This method results in halves of equal area.

There is more to the story and there are several other "CRITICAL" points to be considered in this case which led the court down the path that they went. I am not goin into those here at this time. Those should be considered also, but I figure someone else can add to this.

PS there was a thread on this forum maybe 3 or 4 years ago where there was considerable discussion on this, or maybe it was just me talking. Can't find it and Can't remember when.

PPS: I guess you found the threads. I don't have to look anymore. Maybe if I just read the question, I could give you a good answer. Believe it or not the instructions are found in the case, go half the distance.

[bruce hall]

that the instructions are in the decision-see last PPS-there is probably more to your case than Wood vs Mandrilla.

Example one: Are you dealing with a big move in the position of the dividing line using one method vs another. In Wood vs Mandrilla it was a move of 160 feet by half a mile. Not that it should matter, but maybe it does.

Example 2: You got old maps, Old pipes in the ground, probably the surveyor in 1949 showed the pipes and the maps to someone. What did they think they owned or conveyed? You also have a survey in the 60's that used a midpoint solution.

Any improvements? I am not saying the previous surveyor used the correct method one way or the other, but he was first guy in and that was 60 years ago. Do you really want to move stuff around after 60 years?

How many section breakdowns have you seen that cut out an aliquot portion by area? I am sure that there is at least one out there cause Jeremy Evans told me about it a few years back. I haven't seen one.

You'd think that the county surveyors would know how to survey this stuff and what "instructions" to use. One would think a lot more CS notes would be placed on these types of aliquot surveys if "area" was the prescribed method instead of using midpoints.

It would seem to me by the evidence of the recorded maps , that midpoints(absent original monuments) are predominately the method used to create halves. But my experience is limited to Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego counties and I haven't cut up any 160 acre parcels recently. Like a reeeeeaaaaaallllll long time.

[Propst]

The first two pages are my comments from the book, take them for what they're worth. They are a discussion of the case and do not really address your questions here.
The next page is the relevant part of the Township Plat for the property in question.
Then a scan of the Official Reports.

As to a resolution to a particular situation, that's going to depend on the evidence available, like Bruce said.

[LS_8750]

Thankyou Bruce for your input. I was hoping you might chime in.

In both examples I'm actually dealing with quarter quarters split in half by private owners in the 1940s and 1960s. The fact that they are quarter quarters split under private ownership leads me to believe the the split should mean equal area, the common boundary being the mean bearing, lacking any evidence to suggest otherwise.

In Example 1, I'm looking at a difference of 0.8 feet, or about 0.02 ac, when I compare the distance split vs. the area split. The line runs through forested mountain terrain, but none of this matters. What matters is the correct location of the boundary line.

Example 2 is actually rather interesting. The un-recorded 1949 map shows my quarter quarter, the NE1/4 of the NW1/4, split by distance. Furthermore, the distances shown on the 1949 map are proportioned based on a traverse of the north line of section 12, the north quarter corner was gone and they did not restore it. I traversed the north line of section 12 and come up 4 feet short of the 1949 map. There is no evidence to suggest that the north quarter corner should be restored anywhere but at the midpoint of the north section line. So, it turns out by my measurements the NE1/4 of the NW1/4 is 2+ feet skinnier, and because of the un-recorded 1949 map and subsequent 1964 R/S, the shortage is taken up by the east half of the NE1/4 of the NW1/4.

Now with respect to Example 2, I do not want to move a line that has apparently been accepted, or unchallenged, in 60 years. But, what matters is what is right. The un-recorded 1949 map sets up the split by distance, right or wrong, they set monuments, I found those monuments. I want to understand:

1. Was the 1949 un-recorded map showing split by distance the wrong approach according to Wood v. Mandrill? (lacking any evidence to support intent by the subdivider)
2. Despite all, shouldn't the monuments representing the common line hold?




And then finally on a theoretical note regarding Wood v. Mandrill:

Say after receipt of the patent for the SW1/4 of Section 30, instead of the private owner splitting the land in half by area, he instead quarters the SW1/4 without mention of intent by equal area or by federal rule. Does Wood v. Mandrill say that the split should follow federal rule or not?

Please all, have patience. I am just beginning this journey into the profession.

Cheers.

[bruce hall]

In example 1, I would split the distance.

" Was the 1949 un-recorded map showing split by distance the wrong approach according to Wood v. Mandrill? (lacking any evidence to support intent by the subdivider)"

Setting the monuments by the split of the distance was the correct approach and it is according to the the approach that the Court took with respect to Wood vs. Mandrilla. That is exactly what the court did.

"Despite all, shouldn't the monuments representing the common line hold?"

I think that those monuments should hold in Example 2. The splitting of the distances (or midpoints, or equidistant from the quarter corners), whatever word you want to use is the "right" method. Now this is barring any improvements, or "other stuff" that could throw a wrench in my answer. I like the monuments and them being set halfway by distance.

As too the theoretical question regarding the quartering of the quarter, quarter. I don't know if Wood vs Mandrilla can be seen as addressing the quartering of a quarter section. The fact set is different. Kinda.

I will though, jump out on this limb that I am on and say I believe that the midpoint solution(federal rules) used by the Court in Wood vs Mandrilla could be used as a basis for quartering that particular Section 30. And if it was my survey, I would probably set my pipes in those locations, barring any weird stuff(fences, dogs, guns, lost deeds).

I mean the Court kinda sorta said "Duh, the method to be used in already in the law.The law of the USA. Duh."

Like you said Stoner, it was a brilliant method. Devised by Thomas Jefferson. It was supposed to be simple leaving no remainder(aliquot).

PS: Stoner, this is my take on it. Chances are very good that there will be opposing opinions. And that's okay. Good Luck making heads or tails of it. I know I'll need it also.

[LS_8750]

Well, it appears to me that Wood was not the sharpest tool in the shed.

As surveyors we all know that "half by distance" does not equal "Half by area". You hammer out a plate of gold into a square and cut it in equidistant halves, hand me one piece and tell me it is half of the whole, and I am gonna want to see it weighed out by a calibrated scale to my satisfaction. I want my half. That is California real estate. Save the trickery for the carnival.

The Opinion basically says we should use federal rule, equidistance, to break down a quarter section into an east and west half.

The federal rule to my knowledge never gave instructions on how to break down a "government lot", a 1/16 section, a quarter quarter, or that portion of a quarter section 40 acres and under.

The Opinion states that the "government surveyed the fractional quarter section and then provided by law how such a quarter section should be divided to ascertain the east and west halves thereof". I could go out on a limb and extend the Opinion to mean that a complete quarter section breakdown into four lots, or quarter quarters would also follow federal rule.

At some point the word "half" "must be given its literal significance as one of two equal parts of the property described", as the Opinion states.

I think that since the federal rules do not instruct the breakdown of a quarter quarter, or government lot, then we should be held to the meaning of the word "half", in its literal meaning.

Is there something I am missing in my thought process? I could sure use some suggestions.


Oh, and Tom Propst, I ordered your books. Thanks!

Cheers.

[Propst]

The posted pdf of the case above is the appellate court decision, which was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court.

The cite for the final resolution of Bryant against Blevins is:
Bryant v. Blevins (1994) 9 Cal.4th 47 , 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 86; 884 P.2d 1034

You can look it up at:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/CACourts/

Now with cases back to 1850!

PS: Thanks Clark! I sure need the money. :)
I'll mail you my current errata for the Federal Book, I missed a case in that compilation.

[LS_8750]

Good Grief!

First of all, thanks Wooley for your guidance.

Secondly, thanks Propst for the Supreme Court's decision on Bryant v. Blevins.

The Supreme Court's Bryant v. Blevins decision gives me comfort. The Dissent gave me the willies as did the Appellate Opinion in that fence lines could become boundaries so easily.


Funny thing about the Supreme Court's Bryant v. Blevins decision as it relates to Wood v. Mandrilla:
1. The Assessor splits the lot in half by distance. No matter, he is the Assessor.
2. The surveyor splits the lots in half by area using the east line parallel to the west line (his logic unknown.... why not mean bearing?). The Court accepts the survey.
3. From the Decision: the words ""east half" and "west half" in a deed, while naturally importing equal division, may lose that effect when it appears that at the time some fixed line or known boundary or monument divides the premises somewhere near the center"...

My Example 2 client is getting shorted a couple feet by this existent "east half" and "west half" line.

I think I am sifting through this!
Engineering is easier.

Cheers!

[E_Page]

Bear in mind that the parcel in Wood was not a standard aliquot portion, which appeared to confuse the court somewhat as they attempted to apply rules for subdividing a standard section. Nor did they seem to understand the concept of protracted subdivisions.

Likewise in Bryant, the parcel in question was not an aliquot portion. Half by area makes sense lacking reliable evidence of a different intent.

The Wood court cited the law describing how a quarter section should be divided in a standard section. I suspect that if the Wood parcel had been a nominal 160 rather than the western tier of a fractoonal, the court would have accepted, or perhaps preferred the construction of a line between the mid points of the north and south lines of the 1/4.

The difference you describe between half by area vs half by BLM method is actually pretty minimal, and so unlikely to be challenged either way. In the one example, you have a previous, construction which has been there for 62 years. It holds, use it. You do not have authority to alter it even if it had been done incorrectly.

In the other example, you are in a normal section. I would use the method from the BLM manual if there is no reliable evidence of a different previous construction. If the parcels were not aliquot of a normal section, I would use half by area, again lacking reliable evidence of a different intent.