California Surveyors Forums

While reviewing a legal description, I came across a parcel described as "The East 10 Acres of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 17" (In theory, the intent being the E 1/2 of the E 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4). A current subdivision map was done for NE 1/4 breakdown, and, for the most part agreed within a foot or two of the older maps of this part of the section. One of the parcels being a part of this map was similar to the above description in that was described "East 5 acres of the W 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 17". The latter held acreage to a tee, in that they held a parallel line to the respective side of the sectional breakdown until it matched the acreage. Unless there may have been Junior-senior issues involved, I would understand this not to be the intent. I was attempting to find a reference to this principle, but it is eluding me. If anyone could help, that would be great.
Thanks in advance.

Section 13.9 of Brown's Boundary Control and Legal Principles (4th Ed.) covers this topic. According to this text, if other, more definitive terms do not exist in the legal description, then the acerage should be measured parallel to the respective line. If it was the first of a sequential conveyance, the east 5 acres should be 5 acres.

I would think that the intent would be the east TEN ACRES, with the west line of this east ten acres being parallel to the east line of the quarter quarter section line.

Wood v Mandrilla may provide you with some guidance:

wood vs mandrilla had to do with halves of a quarter section. The legal description in that case read the ".......east half of the southwest quarter....", not the east 80 acres like wood thought he conveyed to mandrilla.

I would have thought that the "intent" would have been the breakdown part of the section (being in theory, 10-acres). The section referenced in Brown did not really provide the scenario I was looking for (relative to sectional breakdowns). Although now private, not public land, much of the time the BLM principles still apply (in that each part would be 1/2). I looked at the legal case, and that was interesting, but not necessarily relative here.
Thank you for your input.

Wood v. Mandrilla tells us half means half (if memory serves correct). Given that, It might be fair to say that 5 acres means 5 acres.

Given that, and lands have passed beyond old government patents, etc., does midpoint to midpoint really suffice? Perhaps east line parallel to west? Or perhaps west parallel to east? Or maybe weighted mean bearing? Or maybe some invention of your own?

How does occupation play Into this equation?

Wood v. Mandrilla was also not a standard section. It was in the SW 1/4 of Section 30. Being a West tier section, any excess or deficiency (in this case about 18 acres of excess) was placed in the section west of the East 60 chains by the GLO in the original township survey.

Most people want to apply this case to any PLSS division where 1/2 of a quarter division, or a specified acreage is called. I don't think that's a correct application. I think it more likely that whoever wrote the description, most likely an attorney or some other non-surveyor assumed that there was always 640 acres in a section, 160 acres in a quarter section... 80... 40... and 10 acres in a 1/64 section. It would take a good deal of explaining to many of the attorneys and landowners that wrote these kind of descriptions that by dividing the section according to the methods that the Federal Government intended, the acreages will always be something a little more or a little less than the nominal, or GLO record amount.

Whenever I see a nominal acreage or distance matching that for a standard aliquot division, I presume that the aliquot division was intended unless there is a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

Where I see a division of a "quarter" section that includes government lots (typically northern or western tier), whether by fraction or by specified area, I presume a division of the total area by that fraction (i.e. the E 1/2 of a 178.98 acre western tier "quarter" section is 89.49 acres, and the East 80 acres is 80.00 acres) per Wood v. Mandrilla. Again, unless a preponderance of the evidence indicates a different intent.

Evan,
That is my take as well. It appears that through time the property was possibly re-described by a lawyer or title person. The evidence would only be from what a field survey would yield. That being said, that evidence may change my thought on this one. I agree that, unless the contrary may be shown, the "intent" would be the portion of the sectional break-down. In this case, it makes a difference of about a 1/2 foot versus a 2008 subdivision map.
Thank you for your (and everyone's) comments.

Mike

Well I guess the legal reads " the east 10 acres of this quarter quarter section". But the intent is not to grant 10 acres but something else kinda sorta close to 10 acres, because this description SHOULD read the east half of the west half, because we all know that these descriptions were written by someone (lawyers and land owners) who doesn't understand sectional breakdowns.

Unless there is something else that I don't know regarding the land or the surveys in this portion of the section I would go with the acreage call and not a midpoint solution described in the Manual.

Ours is such an exact science - LOL. It would be if we could keep the want-a-bes out of it.