Need opinions more N1/4 cor sec 2

[TIB]

This is a continuation of prior thread. I'm still struggling with it. I have not been able to find written documentation to back up my ideas either way. I'll try to keep it simple.
Client owns land in Frac. lot 3 Sec 2
The issue: correct location of N1/4 cor sec2 and frac. lot lines

History and facts:
All info per GLO notes, monuments deemed original, township line not correction or Std. Parallel. Land is in unincorporated area, hilly terrain. few houses, not far from Mexico border.
In 1856 Groom surveys south line of Township. He sets SW cor sec 35, goes 40 ch, sets S1/4 cor Sec35, goes 40 ch, sets SE sec cor 35 and continues...

In 1881 Brunt subdivides Tshp to south. He sets both South sec cors of Sec2. He goes N 40 ch and sets E & W 1/4 cors. He then goes North another 40 ch and sets temp cors (not closing cors) for NW & NE sec cors of Sec 2.
He finds the two South sec cors of Sec 35 set by Groom in 1856 close by, accepts them, makes notes, removes temp cors, then adjusts the E & W 1/4 cors of Sec 2. He make no mention of N 1/4 cor.
The official Plat shows acres for frac. lots 1-4 that are consistent with equal distribution of each lot of 20 ch each along township line

In 2013 TIB surveys along Township. He finds 1/4 cor (sec 35) approx 250' east of the mid-pt of sec cors.

Where is N1/4 cor sec 2?

Possible solution A: Sec 35 is different than Sec 2. The N 1/4 cor of Sec 2 is not same as S1/4 cor Sec 35, and should be placed at mid-pt of section cors. This will result in equal distances along township line for frac. lots 1-4, as shown on official plat, lots 1-4 all get their equal share.

Possible solution B: Since the 1881 Brunt survey used the 1856 Groom section corners, they are common, so the 1/4 cors should be common also. The N1/4 of 2 is the same as S1/4 of 35 and should be held as is. If this results in unequal distribution of Frac. lots 1-4. so be it.

Possible solution C: ?????

What y'all think?
Thanks TIB

[Dhanrion]

and its really hard to give sound counsel w/o being in the "trenches" and having all the information (deeds, surveys, GLO field notes, conveyance history, etc.) that require weighing and analyzing. But if this were exclusively Public Domain lands (BLM, USFS, etc,), then the solution is somewhat simpler. But again, my advice is over-simplified, based upon assumptions, and limited upon my NOT having all the information. So here goes ...

Is the monument at the S1/4 of 35 the original corner? If not, how was it's current location set/perpetuated? In the original field notes, were there topo calls or other accessories (BTs, BOs, etc.) to the S1/4? When the line is retraced today and said topo calls/accessories are indisputably recovered, do they show the current S1/4 location to be in conflict with said accessories?

If the S1/4 is original and matches to topo calls/accessories of the original field notes, then its location is fixed, irregardless of the report of "equal acreages" on the GLO plat. This type of scenario happens far more often than most non-PLSS surveyors realize.

Conversely, when dealing with privately held lands, there are additional issues that need to be weighed. The most obvious would be history of private surveys and the land owner's reliance upon said surveys. From there, it gets even more complicated.

[TIB]

Hoping for advice from smarter than I Cfeds.
The S1/4 cor of 35 is considered original and is consistent with GLO notes. It's position is fixed for Sec 35. But when set, it was set as S1/4 cor of 35, not as N1/4 cor sec 2. It certainly holds for sec 35 but does that mean it must hold for sec 2 also, surveyed 25 years later?
Can double 1/4 cors exist?
I'm hoping to find some published reference to support decision. I can't find it in any of the Manuals
TIB

[bruce hall]

"Can double 1/4 cors exist?" Yes they can. One going north, the other going south, or one going east and the other goin west.

See "Restoration of Lost or Obliterated Corners and Subdivision of Sections 1883-1974" compliled by Carben Surveying Reprints copyrighted in 1977.

I have also seen maps during my surveying career that show this, but it has been a while.

[Dhanrion]

Your case in a nut shell:
GLO Surveyor "A" sets section & quarter corner for township boundary, including Section 35. GLO Surveyor "B" finds section corners set by surveyor "A", which are (in this case) common (his notes irrefutably state this is the case), and accepts their POSITION, irregardless of where surveyor "B" at the time THOUGHT they should have fallen when surveyor "B" was subdividing the adjacent township. Surveyor "B" would not even consider setting a N1/4: one already existed (common corner, like SW & SE of Section 35) from Surveyor "A". And he would not have even bothered looking for the 1/4 corner; it is a non-controlling corner for Surveyor "B"s survey.

Normally, double corners on North township lines and West range lines should only exist for a couple of reasons:
1) Guide Meridians and Standard Parallels
2) Independent Surveys

Well there is a third reason: Surveyor(s) screwed up and set multiple corners (would you like your "pincushion" monuments in steel or wood?)

In this particular case: there should NOT be double corners. So, unless the 2nd GLO surveyor set and reported setting a N1/4 corner independent of the S1/4 of 35, there is NO 2nd corner for this position. Seen another way (I like simple examples):

Land owner (this could be BLM, USFS, private, etc.) holds the entire north half of Section 2, including Government Lots 1 thru 4. He wants to sell Lots 2 & 3. You need to pin those Government Lots and file a survey. The Township and Range lines are "normal": they are neither Standard Parallels nor Guide Meridians, and no CC's were set for the sections closing on the West Range line or the North Township line. Original GLO surveys and notes irrefutably show this as fact.

To properly (aka legally under PLSS guidelines) subdivide the section, you need to locate the controlling corners, which are: all of the 1/4's and NW & NE section corners. To make your life simple, you actually find them, and they are all proved to be original. So, regardless of where they "should" have been, their positions on the ground hold: even if the corners are HUNDREDS of feet off from the GLO reported positions. So solution B, but ...

Conversely, as I recall reading your original thread, because you are dealing with privately held lands, and subsequent private surveys (recorded or unrecorded, Mr. 'Dork' included), you have the issue of land owner's reliance (in good faith) upon those private surveys and the ground position(s) of their respective monuments. This also cannot be ignored, regardless of where the these other surveyor corners SHOULD have been placed.

Your survey should show that the N1/4 IS the S1/4 of S35. You should show the proper subdivision of the section, while showing the current lines based upon those private surveys. The affected land owners then have all the facts, and can choose to clean up their title to reflect what they actually occupy. Unless, of course, they all want to move their improvements. :)

Sadly, I deal with a lot of private surveys (old and newer), where surveyors were, well ... basically PLSS numb nuts. You now have the glorious, first hand experience justifying the responsibility that any professional has to either a) work within their realm of expertise, b) invest in more education BEFORE the job, or c) just pass on the job.

[TIB]

Solution B You guys were right. I was wr... nevermind.
After contacting BLM Chief Cadastral surveyor with the same facts, he concluded that there was no argument to support solution A Thanks all

[Dhanrion]

Solution B You guys were right. I was wr... nevermind.
After contacting BLM Chief Cadastral surveyor with the same facts, he concluded that there was no argument to support solution A Thanks all

contacting the BLM office. I have never had a Chief Cadastral refuse to provide assistance.

And it should never be about being right; it should be about helping others to find the correct answer.

[Gromatici]

What about posting the notes and give us the townshp range and basepine and we can follow the problem? Maybe you can give us the measured data too?