California Surveyors Forums

In a typical Section 18, the NW1/4 of the SW1/4 does not exist. The parcels in question should have been described as the E1/2 or W1/2 of Lot 3, Section 18. That being said, the overage/shortage would be applied to the lot as a whole, not to the west half alone, so it would be an even split, but not necessarily by the same method you'd use to split an aliquot part of the section....

Looks like you need to look at some parol evidence to discern the intent.

The NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 is a govt lot, meaning that the deficiency was taken up in that lot. Your client's description, while being mistaken in it's language, presumably refers to a portion of that lot.

The GLO did not put the deficiency into the smallest westerly portion that would be divided at some point in the future. They put it into the entire government lot. The mathmagically correct division of the W 1/2 of the Govt Lot would be by area. But I suspect that you will need to look to the facts on the ground to see if that was their intent. Lacking sufficient evidence to the contrary, I'd define the W 1/2 by area.

woods v mandrilla, a CA supreme court case was a case involving just the question you pose. Since the 1/4 section is fractional where is the E 1/2? This is not a problem if the part is a full aliquot part. Half by area is not really a math solution, it is ,but it has the weight of the Ca supreme court behind it.

Evan is correct,in that USUALLY section 18 is fractional because it is on the west side of the township and that is where the error would be placed,but without seeing the plat in question one cannot be 100% certain. There are times when lotting occurs in other parts of the section.

The question is which set of rules apply, state rules or federal rules and has anything happened that would defeat either of these rules.

So it depends.... on the evidence viewed in relation to the rules

Jerry makes a great point in getting the chain of title back to the patent.

Herndon Avenue in Clovis falls along the Township line. The north half of the sections are shorter than “standard”. A number of the sections were patented to single owners, one of whom split the section into north and south halves at the mid-point of the east and west lines of the section without regard to the location of the quarter corners!

Was it wrong to do so? No! The sections had passed into private ownership. The new owners had the right to divide the property however they felt necessary.

As one crusty old government surveyor once counseled me, “Your research has just begun!”

.

Wood vs. Mandrilla, the question before the court was did the govt plat describe the line dividing the east and west halves of the quarter section, or was the dividing method to be used found in the Revised Statutes of the Congress of the United States.

The court ruled that the statutes was the correct way to separate the east and west halves. Basically a midpoint deal with two halves resulting in equal area.

The legal description from Wood to Mandrilla had no mention of "of govt plat or govt rules".

Is there any gov't ownership within the SW1/4, if so how would the gov't breakdown the SW1/4? When the patent was issued, which manual was in affect? Is the Section short? It may be long, we have a few Section 18's that are 120 chains east to west. Follow the chain of title, what was the intent.

Mauro, you are still kicking.

For what is is worth, here is a copy of my favorite ROS and how I justified using Federal procedures on a Rancho where an extension of the United State Government System of Surveys was "reputed" to have been made in May of 1884.

The issue of where to divide the West 30 acres of the SE1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 17 which in my retracementcontained 41.09 acres, was one which I mulled over for some time. After researching some of the historical land transfers and considering the intent of the parties in making the deeds, using Federal rules was the decision I came to, See Surveyors note #3

"The east half of the southwest quarter of section 30, township 20 south, range 24 east, Mount Diablo base and meridian."

To the extent that the initial post is discussing a fractional section, there is a similarity to the issues in Woods v Mandrilla.

"This is an action in ejectment to recover a strip of ten acres of land, part of the southwest quarter of section 30, township 20 south, range 24 east, in Tulare County. This quarter section was originally government land -- the fractional quarter section containing 178.98 acres as returned by the surveyor under the government survey....." Woods v Mandrilla 1914 (167 cal 607)

I am very glad that you post on this board. After readfing your comment, then I ought to have been clearer and state that the initial post appears to be similar to the Woods v Mandrilla case in that both involve anomolous sections. Even though the in the case they use the term "fractional", it is misleading for this discussion for the reasons you cite.

I am sorry to hear that the new manual makes some of these issue more difficult to understand. I was under the impression that part of the reason for doing anew manual was to clear up some of these isses.

Say after receipt of the patent for the SW4 of Section 30, instead of the private owner splitting the land in half by area, he instead quarters the SW4.

Curt Brown doesn't go into this.

Under this ruling are we to subdivide quarter sections by area then?

Well that is a good question. We have the SMA now and the subdivision would have to occurr via a map, unless it is to or from a public agency, and so it would seem the confusion would be minimized.

For older subdivisions, we would be guided by the Supreme court decision as to the meaning of "Half", as being half by area.One had better have extremely solid evidence to put the line somewhere else.

call up the private owner of the sw 1/4 and ask him how he wants it done. Chances are that anyway he wants to do it will probably comply with local ordinance. But I am probably out to lunch on this one as well.

Wood v Mandrilla involved a single patent to the SW1/4 that was later divided in half. The Court ruled that half is understood in its plain meaning unless otherwise stated in the Deed.

If the govt patented out pieces of the quarter then Wood would not apply in this context.

Wood has other good stuff in it, focus more on the general rules and less on the facts of a particular case.