reminds me of this case... Someone has to prove the landowner pulled the surveyors pin. Not going to happen.
Montana landowner wins road access lawsuit
Judge rules interim order in favor of landowner over use of Fergus County road
Bam Bam
Well-known member
Ah, the infamous inflation calculator. Now, instead of thinking about corner crossing, I am fretting about the imminent death of fiat currency, the future of America's economy, and the long-term effects our economic struggles will have on the World. Thanks a lot, RobG.
Jbaldwin40
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2021
- Messages
- 68
I think there is a 50 50 shot on if they are successful. Checkerboard public land sucks. Basically doubles the amount of land the private holder control. Makes me wonder why BLM etc is not working to consolidate our land. I am aware of such land swaps it is just not very frequent. Probably wouldn't be likely though if it reduces the amount of public the private can control and use. Putting a chain and sign at intersecting corners only solidifies to me the internet of the landowner is to control our public ground.
Pestcontrol
Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2021
- Messages
- 33
Most of the survey markers don’t have fences in Carbon County as the rangeland is so vast. The actual corner in question on Elk Mountain is posted earlier in this thread and as you can see no fence just a few metal posts to make it difficult to cross there. Fences are not legal property boundaries in most jurisdictions as they are ruled fence lines of convenience.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
sometimes, if two land owners agree that the fence is the property line, over time, mutual acquiescence factors in, but specifically doesn't apply when one party is a public entity.
Dl1969
Active member
reminds me of this case... Someone has to prove the landowner pulled the surveyors pin. Not going to happen.
Montana landowner wins road access lawsuit
Judge rules interim order in favor of landowner over use of Fergus County roadwww.gohunt.com
Attachments
Dl1969
Active member
Is this one?
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
That's a 1/4 corner. Could be a property corner too, but it's not a section corner.
seeth07
Well-known member
Few things of knowledge I'd like to chime in with because I think a few things have been brought up without really knowing much about them.
First off, survey markers are not placed or verified using GPS as stated here:
I work for an engineering firm that does a lot of land surveying. They locate and place new property markers using old and new school technology that involve lasers, rulers, transits, etc. NOT GPS. In the surveying world, its critical that the placement of a marker be extremely previse and that level of precision does not exist with GPS.
Secondly, neffa3 is correct here at least for sure in the State of Wisconsin. I'm not sure if that is correct elsewhere.
First off, survey markers are not placed or verified using GPS as stated here:
I work for an engineering firm that does a lot of land surveying. They locate and place new property markers using old and new school technology that involve lasers, rulers, transits, etc. NOT GPS. In the surveying world, its critical that the placement of a marker be extremely previse and that level of precision does not exist with GPS.
Secondly, neffa3 is correct here at least for sure in the State of Wisconsin. I'm not sure if that is correct elsewhere.
There are numerous cases where properties in this state had fence lines or roads established that didn't occur exactly on a property boundary and there is such a thing as land abandonment and reclamation by the adjoining land owner. I'm sure someone else here more knowledgably on the legal background of this could chime in. Point just being that if a landowner establishes a fence line as a "property boundary", the location of it is close enough to be assumed as the "property boundary".
seeth07
Well-known member
Last edited:
seeth07
Well-known member
That's because there are different ways for a property survey to be completed (4 in fact). Of those, there are two that are basically the same thing with one difference and they are called "boundary surveys". These are completed using research of public records, research in the field, and measurements and calculations from the field. A boundary survey will produce a very detailed property plat and will be submitted to the county for certification and record. If a boundary survey results in the surveyor discovering that a section corner marker is off (these markers are buried by the way to ensure they aren't tampered with and there is a device surveyors use to scan the earth and easily locate them), they have the right and authority to correct it and file the correction with the county.
seeth07
Well-known member
No, I'm just pointing out that the only thing official and in record is the actual plat map and certified stamped and recorded record of it with the county office. The establishment of these records does not involve GPS nor does the official placement of a marker by a certified surveyor.
seeth07
Well-known member
Assuming that corner crossing is something you legally and ethically want to do:
Go purchase and print out the plat map for one of the four properties. Go out to that property with a transit and measuring device of your choice and follow the information on the plat map to locate the previse exact corner (dimensions typically are given on the map to the nearest 1/100 of a foot). Cross at that exact point even though the fence line might be 100 feet away or some visual property land survey post marker might be 10 feet away. You will be legal and found not guilty of any trespassing as you are following the legal definition of the property boundaries.
And again...these legal definitions are made without any sort of fancy GPS....
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
It's very common to set corners with GPS. Especially in open areas with very few trees. Survey grade GPS, that is. Not hand held units made for recreational use.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Easy legislative solution. For purposes of non-destructive corner-crossing, evidence of the use of an up-to-date commercially available GPS to determine corner location creates a rebuttable presumption of the proper corner location. It would then be in the land owner's interest to have evidence of real corners.
thusby
Well-known member
I dropped my $100 into the fund. Lot less than paying the fines of the first person charged last year, which I also said I would do. Surprised they charged this and wouldn’t be shocked if they dropped it to avoid a legal outcome.
TheGreek
Well-known member
In case anyone is bored and/or interested, here is a link to the US Supreme Court Case Leo Sheep Co. v. United States referenced supra. 440 U.S. 668 (1979). If nothing else, it provides an interesting history of how we got to the current "western checkerboard problem."
supreme.justia.com
Below are links to some older US Supreme Court Cases cited to in Leo Sheep Co. or in the cases cited therein.
Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518 (1897)
Buford v. Houtz, 133 U.S. 320 (1890)
This 2019 UCLA Law Review Comment by John W. Sheridan does a pretty good job summarizing the current issues regarding the "western checkerboard problem," how it developed and possible solutions, all while using modern language, unlike Camfield and Buford.
The Legal Landscape of America's Landlocked Property, 37 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 229
Leo Sheep Co. v. United States, 440 U.S. 668 (1979)
Leo Sheep Co. v. United States
supreme.justia.com
Below are links to some older US Supreme Court Cases cited to in Leo Sheep Co. or in the cases cited therein.
Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518 (1897)
Buford v. Houtz, 133 U.S. 320 (1890)
This 2019 UCLA Law Review Comment by John W. Sheridan does a pretty good job summarizing the current issues regarding the "western checkerboard problem," how it developed and possible solutions, all while using modern language, unlike Camfield and Buford.
The Legal Landscape of America's Landlocked Property, 37 UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 229
Last edited:
