PLSO Oregon Surveyor Nov/Dec 2019

Professional Land Surveyors of Oregon | www.plso.org 15 2020 Annual Conference Why does Foose think double propor- tioning (DP) works well on federal lands? Here’s a few stereotypes frommy side of the fence. 1. Congress is the only impacted owner. 2. Theoretically the only evidence of a survey is the monuments, notes, and plat in that order. 3. The interior lines are not quite authoritative until patent (big asterisk here). 4. The rules are written for ease of disposal, effective land management, and dare I say government efficiency. 5. DP is a clean way to erase the blackboard, adjust some figures and move on. These are all good reasons to use DP and when you manage a ka-jillion acres it’s a really handy tool. By the way, I’ve heard a bunch of rope stretching lore about the BLM rejecting private monuments. My first question is always “Was the private surveyor authorized by Congress to set those corners on federal land?” I get a lot of dumb looks after that one. So what ancient philosophy does old Con- Foose-us offer about DP in the non-federal arena? 1. It only works if the impacted owners are agreeable. 2. It’s impossible to say scientifically, or legally that it is evidence of any past conveyance or survey. 3. The position has served zero notice of any previously recorded grant. 4. The standard of “lost” seems far higher when you talk about competing chains of title. Most of us should never encounter a lost PLSS corner. Why? It’s got more to do with state law and human nature than geome- try. The landmark Oregon case of Dykes v. Arnold shows both sides of double pro- portioning across private domains. We’ll be setting aside the judicial authority and focus on the surveys in this case. Thursday January 23, 2022— Three Half’s My mother always cut up the food equal- ly between my siblings. I sat at the end of the table of seven and was always either short changed or piled on. One day I asked why? She said, “That’s just your half.” That made no sense but who was I to argue? It wasn’t until I read Curtis Brown that I realized she was actually prorating the block and distastefully “surplus-ing” the end lot, but I digress. The courts have ad- opted several varying interpretations of “half” when it comes to divvying up your land and there is good justification for each of those unique definitions. That’s the focus of “Three Half’s” and we’ll look at three cases that prove it. Wood v. Mandrilla is a California case that challenges everything you thought you knew about G.L.O. lotting and how the practice measures up to state law. This case might upset a few apple carts. Atwell v. Olsen was tried just after World War II and made it all the way up to the Washington Supreme Court. This case dives into the original grantor and grant- ee agreeing on their homespun version of the termhalf. This case is a real doozy and promises to make you think twice about record descriptions. Bryant v. Blevins is a real peach for the rope stretcher. An uncontroverted survey in the Golden State was not at variance with the original plat or the undisputed descriptions of each half. In fact, both parties stipulated to this perfect survey. So why in the name of all things sacred is this thing even in court? Three Half’s is for anybody interested in seeing what the courts have to say about legal descriptions, surveying, and the in- tentions of the original grant. Again, we’ve got a full day of material so hang tough for thewhole affair or pop in and out between the other great speakers at this year’s con- ference. As previously mentioned, it is a great honor to present at the 2020 confer- ence. I’d like to recognize AimeeMcAuliffe, Tim Kent, and Brian Portwood for their tremendous effort in organizing the 2020 conference. I encourage ever attendee to take aminute and show your appreciation to all of the folks that worked so hard to pull this show together. Finally, I offer my kudos and appreciation to Greg Crites for the opportunity to contribute to The Ore- gon Surveyor . x