I need to clarify "SOUTH 1/2 of Lot 1 of Tract 1234"

[liftmys10]

I just watched the video from Caltrans Part 15: Legal Descriptions, if anyone needs a refresher for this topic, it starts on 1:01:05 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyOeO7H ... 7kEvVhDC9n

My questions:
-Is lot 1 of Tract 1234 as shown in the Sample PDF attachment below considered irregular in shape?
-Are the lot lines "close or nearly" cardinal in direction (as mentioned in the caltrans video above)?
-How do I establish the South 1/2? I know it's by equal area but I'm trying to figure out the north line of the south 1/2.
-Should the north line of the south 1/2 be parallel with the south line and then find equal area half? OR do I use the midpoints of the east and west property lines (as done in public lands)? (ref. Brown's Boundary Control Fifth edition section 13.5)

[LS 4722]

Midpoints and a description on how the 1/2 lot was divided

[D Ryan]

Equal area, parallel with south line. Brown, second edition (attached).

[LS 4722]

Equal area, parallel with south line. Brown, second edition (attached).

Brown was focusing on a mean of the sideline bearings, not a hard and fast parallel line rule.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Brown makes a distinction between "southerly half" and "south one-half" in the edition I pulled off of the shelf.

"Southerly half" = mean bearings

"south one-half" = parallel to the south line.

If the parcels are the "south one-half" and the "north one-half" then the first parcel out would control which line to be parallel with.

[liftmys10]

Brown makes a distinction between "southerly half" and "south one-half" in the edition I pulled off of the shelf.

"Southerly half" = mean bearings

"south one-half" = parallel to the south line.

If the parcels are the "south one-half" and the "north one-half" then the first parcel out would control which line to be parallel with.

How about "south half?

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Frankly, Brown contradicts himself in this section. His stated principle isn't rooted in any case law I can found. He states the principle as being a mean bearing then makes confusing statements about in some cases it should be parallel to the south line.

I think in reality by the time a case gets to the Appellate level they aren't arguing over nit picky details like parallel vs. mean bearing hence the lack of judicial guidance.

I would use parallel to the south line because it makes the most sense in this example. You know the original party that wrote that naturally thought the lot is perfectly rectangular.

[land butcher]

Half means 50% of the whole. If the north and south lines are not parallel, and no other holds, then why not mean the split line bearing and place it so each gets 50%. A wife gets 50% so should neighbors :)

[LS_8750]

Good question.
Assuming you are not in GLO lands, the attached may give some guidance.

Occupation should be taken into account.

[Steve Martin]

Attached is a page from Russ's 1991 Land Surveys for Rights of way.

I would interpret that as nearly rectangular. If the South half has Senior rights, then the customary method would be parallel with the south line.

If the north and south halfs were sold simultaneously then likely the midpoints of the sidelines would control.

[dedkad]

Good question.
Assuming you are not in GLO lands, the attached may give some guidance.

Occupation should be taken into account.

The way I read this court finding, occupation should not be taken into account if there are sufficient legal descriptions in recorded deeds.

"Were we to hold that...dilapidated-and perhaps meandering-fences constitute a sufficient basis for displacing the legal descriptions set forth in
recorded deeds, we would be taking a significant step backward toward the days of unrecorded agreements and frontier justice, thereby injecting added uncertainty into this area of the law and spawning much needless litigation."

Frontier justice. That's funny.

Also, the way I read Brown, if the lines aren't parallel, the dividing line should be a line running east-west placed in a location where the 2 halves are of equal area.

[LS_8750]

Granted, Bryant v. Blevin was a rather extreme example in relation to the example given in the original post. But, in Bryant v. Blevin, the surveyor's approach to the problem was acceptable to the courts, hence the reason why I posted it.

In my experience surveying and in mathematics, I've never seen two lines parallel except in theory.

So again, look at the example given in the original post. What if occupation landed somewhere in between the green and red line? Or in between all three of the lines. Because if it can happen, it probably will happen. It has happened to me.

The point is, if you encounter this situation, you better select the method that keeps the neighbors out of the courts.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Bryant is an agreed boundary case. They are ruling on how to apply the Agreed Boundary Doctrine. They repeat Siebel's testimony that the boundary should be parallel and the areas equal but they aren't ruling that is correct. The survey is really a secondary issue in this case which they remand back down for further consideration. It appears the parties gave up at this point because the California Courts failed to resolve the case.

[dmi]

The first question is- are you a retracing or are you laying out this deed line for the first time and creating the line at the request of the owner?

Generally, "the south half" is an ambiguous description because it does not qualify the direction of the dividing line. If you are creating this line, then direction from the subdivider is required. I f you are retracing this line, then look for evidence to confirm the position and direction of the line. There is a case in the Wattles book on just this subject where parties agreed to subdivide by area and when they drew the line it was a line with many angle points to go arournd a tree, yet it still embrace the area of 1/2.....
Federal rules area is half by mid points and state rules is half by area and if I recall it stems from the Ca. Supreme Court Case Woods V Mandrilla

[bruce hall]

case dealt with a contested strip of land half a mile long and about 160 feet wide. 10 acres of land. This was in the southwest quarter of one of the westerly tiers of sections in a township.

Woods(the seller) wanted the line depicted on the official plat to be the dividing line between the two halves. That would have left one half with 80(he sold this to Mandrilla) acres and the other half with 98 acres(what Woods was gonna be left with).

Mandrilla (the buyer)wanted to use the method described in the Revised Statutes of the Congress of the United States of America (federal rules?) to be the method of division which uses midpoints and which would create halves of equal area.

"In every division of a quarter section the dividing line shall run north and south, the end points of the line being midway between the corresponding quarter corners" or something to this effect. That is per the Revised Statues and that's what the court ruled.

In Woods vs Mandrilla the concept was quantity (area) but the method was midpoints.

[LS_8750]

We discussed Wood. v. Mandrilla and Bryant v. Blevins before, in the following thread.

http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.or ... =MANDRILLA

Mr. Ince makes the prudent point about being the subdivider or the retracing surveyor.

[bruce hall]

is a centerline of a 60 foot wide road south of the green and blue lines. What is that all about. Does the centerline of the road supposed to represent the dividing line between halves or ???

[dmi]

VERY GOOD AND CLEAR COMMENT ON THE CASE

[liftmys10]

is a centerline of a 60 foot wide road south of the green and blue lines. What is that all about. Does the centerline of the road supposed to represent the dividing line between halves or ???

The red color centerline is south of the green and blue lines but within the 60' wide street and the centerline does not represent the dividing line between halves.
The full legal description actually says the north 130 feet of South 1/2 half. Except that 60' wide street. The south line of the north 130 is relying on how the south1/2 is established.

[bruce hall]

-Is lot 1 of Tract 1234 as shown in the Sample PDF attachment below considered irregular in shape?

I think it is regular. Although I wonder what the original record measurements of the Lot were as shown on the tract map.

-Are the lot lines "close or nearly" cardinal in direction (as mentioned in the caltrans video above)?

Yes, they are.

-How do I establish the South 1/2? I know it's by equal area but I'm trying to figure out the north line of the south 1/2.

Use methods in post number 5 and 9 by Karoly and Martin.

-Should the north line of the south 1/2 be parallel with the south line and then find equal area half? OR do I use the midpoints of the east and west property lines (as done in public lands)? (ref. Brown's Boundary Control Fifth edition section 13.5)

Use Methods in posts number 5 and 9 (parallel to south line unless deeds were simultaneous) and unless there are improvements or something else that would preclude that method.

Good Luck with this one!! and Merry Christmas.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

A funny thing in Wood v. Mandrilla...

They say the government returned 178.98 acres but it's really about 180 acres LOL. Those are the same thing.

"...Yet once, a little while and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land..."

[bruce hall]

your right.