east 1/3 of Lot 12

[goodgps]

I've never pondered a situation like this, but leave it up to one of my young staff:

We are surveying a piece of land in open, unbuilt upon farm land which is currently farmed by one renter.

Our deed states "the east 1/3 of lot 12 lying north of irrigation canal 4b.

The question: do we measure all of lot 12, split it into 3rds, then lop off the portion south of the canal ? or do we measure only that portion of lot 12 which lies north of the canal . . then split that into 3rds? Then to top it off, do we split by acreage ? or by distance. The Canal is NOT parallel with the south line of Lot 12. There absolutely no improvements to suggest occupation intent.

There is a couple of tenths of an acre difference in solutions AND there are 3 different owners for each 1/3.

My first instinct is to use 1/3 acreage lying north of the canal.

Any other Ideas ?

[Warren Smith]

Consider if the language had been:

"... the east 1/3 of that portion of Lot 12 lying north of irrigation canal 4b."

My first instinct based on what you provided was to divide all of Lot 12 into thirds, then segregate the remainder north of the canal.

[edit] And as to the method of dividing - hmmm. Acreage (area) tends to more equitable than dividing the north and south lines by three and connecting the points. Without improvements for guidance, the area method is preferable.

Warren

[Ian Wilson]

As one of my mentors would have said, “Your research has just begun!”

How are the descriptions of all the other parcels in Lot 12 worded?
Can you determine if there is a difference between the 1/3s north of the canal as opposed to those south of the canal?
Is there a clue from the other descriptions as to how the parcel is divided, acreage v distance?
How are parcels in that area treated when dealing with fractional portions?
Is there a separate description for the 1/3 of Lot 12 lying south of the canal?
Is the canal mostly contiguous with the south line of Lot 12?

Lots of questions…

The answers to these questions may well change my initial view.

Let’s see what you got, Good…

[goodgps]

Thanks,

first, the description of the other 2/3 is exactly . . . the west 2/3 of lot 12 lying north of canal 4b. . . .

The description of the south parcel is . . that portion of lot 12 lying south of canal 4b. . . (it isnt further divided)

Other lots in the Olde Subdivision call out "the west so many feet of Lot 14 . . . and the North so many acres of Lot 2. . . etc. Descriptions in the area seem pretty easy to follow. I've surveyed nearly all of the other lots in this subdivision without much ado. Lot 12 and Lot 13 have yet to be surveyed, I'm on Lot 12 now . . . I think ? Right now. All of lot 12 is in flooded rice. levees are random.

The assessor draws a line at about 1/3 and calls out an approximate acreage.

The canal line is NOT parallel with the south line of lot 12 and lies approximately 300 - 345 feet north of said south line.

Unfortunately, this grant deed has vague wording, which has passed for decades.

signed
"Russell" DeBrain

[Ian Wilson]

Kew-el...

Your first in after the division. You get to mark it how you want.

Since you have a deed conveying land southerly of the canal and three deeds conveying parts north of the canal, you're probably dealing with thirds of the north bit rather than the entire thing. Elsewise, you'd be dealing with three bits north and three bits south of the canal.

I'd survey the Lot, locate the canal and then calculate 1/3 of the acreage above the canal and establish a line parallel with the east line of Lot 12.

I'd go on to file an RS with a dashed line and dimensions showing where you'd slap the east line of the west 1/3...

Smack a BIG statement on the map as to your reasoning ans suggest that other entrymen (and women) use your map as the basis for establishing the points you haven't set. If anyone comes up with a different solution later, future courts are likely to hold your solution and ask them why they didn't have your map and follow your solution.

"Russell", you get the opportunity to fix the mess once and for all times.

Totally kew-el, dude!

Ian

[Peter Ehlert]

Ian: I think your method is good but it is still not quite fixed to my mind...

goodgps: what do the two owners think?
I say it is time to get them involved, let them know what the ambiguities are, and see if they want to "fix" it. If they are on board then they can make a Boundary Line Agreement that is in the configuration that they feel is correct.
Record the BLA, show that recording data on your RoS, and then file it.

A small extra effort, a true service to your client and the public, .... and for those that are constantly concerned about liability, 0 liability.

[goodgps]

Interestingly enough, My clients and their westerly neighbors, have no care as to their property lines. They are out of area investors who lease the ground for rice farming. (Except my client is selling)

Before lunch, we , around here, discussed the dividing of that portion north of the canal and "drawing' a line parallel with the east line, coincinentially as Ian has suggested. I like the note idea. I also like a bit more constructive notice though. BLA isnt bad. It would clean up the legals.
Trouble is, the west owners arent interested, and my client is selling due to lack of personal finances. No money for a BLA.

BIG FAT NOTE may be the best way to go for this one. Also, once monumented and sold, the new owners will most likely place a fence or levee.
If the "westerly's" dont object by estoppel, this fence or levee may ripen into parole evidence Strenghtening the ROS opinion.

I am going to have my guys lath the line then invite all interested parties out for look see. if they Oath, I will add that to the ROS. If they choose bad words, I'll try the "other line" one of these has to stick.
I'm guessing a no-show will occur. this should be noted on the map also ?? maybe??

Never enough time and money for court.

[goodgps]

The final decision was to divide the entire Lot 12 into thirds. then plot the canal. The result was that each of the thirds had "equal" road frontage but not equal acreage.

The wording "the east 1/3 of lot 12" is listed before the "lying north of the canal". We took this after thought to be simply a consideration for a canal which was placed after the Lots were created.
As Ian [the great] said "your research has just begun!" we indeed did extensive research using "olde tymers" in the area and other old maps and aerials to show possible property lines.

The Owners agree but took off before any Oaths were given.
Interesting solution for an odd problem.
This points out that even the best intention on a description can become ambiguous later.

[7702]

With the information given, I'm liking Ian's solution as well. But questions remain. When was the canal constructed? Which are the senior parcels? Seems like the order of conveyance would be significant in determining the solution. If the southerly portion was split off prior to the northerly thirds, it would seem to strengthen the case to split the northerly property into thirds separate from the rest of the lot.

[Peter Ehlert]

I wonder how the rice farmers would mark it out if they did their own survey... I would guess 1/3s by distance on the north and south lines.

[land butcher]

aren't simple lot surveys fun. :)

[7702]

If I were a rice farmer, I would want my fair share based on area, assuming adequate access to water and ingress/egress, etc.

[Ben Lund]

This would make a great exam question! The first part of the question goes something like this:

Given the following legal description and attached survey, “THE EAST 1/3 OF LOT 12 LYING NORTH OF IRRIGATION CANAL 4Bâ€￾

Question 1: Is this locatable?

Question 2: Draw on the attached survey where this land is located (if locatable).

Question 3: How would you write the legal if you wanted to divide the land lying north of canal 4b into three equal areas?

Answers:
1. Yes
2. First divide Lot 12 into east/west thirds. The described land is bounded by the east 1/3 line, Lot 12, and irrigation canal 4b.
3. “THE EAST 1/3 OF THAT PORTION OF LOT 12 LYING NORTH OF IRRIGATION CANAL 4Bâ€￾

Explanation: Syntax is important! This is the general rule and the contrary would have to be proven.