20 acre section question

[Bodfish Mike]

How would one describe the red highlighted 20 acre claim.
Can it be done like this ?

Does this look right ?

E 1/4 SW 1/4 NE 1/4
E 1/4 NE 1/4 SE 1/4
SEC. 20 T.10S.,R21E.,MDM


I am dyslexic or as I like to joke lessdickic and having
a hard time with this.

Cheers Mike

[Tesorodeoro]

How would one describe the red highlighted 20 acre claim.
Can it be done like this ?

Does this look right ?

E 1/4 SW 1/4 NE 1/4
E 1/4 NE 1/4 SE 1/4
SEC. 20 T.10S.,R21E.,MDM


I am dyslexic or as I like to joke lessdickic and having
a hard time with this.

Cheers Mike

=========
Mount Diablo Meridian,California
T. 10 S., R. 21 E.,
sec 20, SE1/4SE1/4NE1/4, and NE1/4NE1/4SE1/4
The area described contains 20 acres.
=========

Your basically saying southeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of section 20 for the first 10 acre area.

Start small and work your way out to the section.
Read it backwards starting with the NE 1/4 section of section 20....quarter that to find the SE 1/4....quarter that to find the SE 1/4.

Clear as mud?

(no such thing as the east 1/4)

[Tesorodeoro]

Specifications of Descriptions for Land, BLM

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/fi...3-057_att1.pdf

[Clay Diggins]

Specifications of Descriptions for Land, BLM

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/fi...3-057_att1.pdf

Here's the most recent version:
Land Matters Library Item

Heavy Pans

[apdp]

I agree with Tesorodeoro , always start in the NE. Always counter clock wise. Each quarter section stand alone.

[Goldwasher]

SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of NE 1/4, Ne 1/4 of the NE1/4 of the SE 1/4

Would be how it's described.

the smallest acerage claimable is ten aces.

They don't want you using more than a four component description That is a six component description.

we are transfering a claim right now that BLM accepted with a six component description so

[Tesorodeoro]

SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of NE 1/4, Ne 1/4 of the NE1/4 of the SE 1/4

Would be how it's described.

the smallest acerage claimable is ten aces.

They don't want you using more than a four component description That is a six component description.

we are transfering a claim right now that BLM accepted with a six component description so

Not responding to GW’s comment, just tagging on.

The example I provided above is the preferred format of the BLM.
The comma after the the first 10 acre description means, “together with” or “and the”.
It signals to the reader that you are now describing a different piece of ground (2 three component descriptions)
Otherwise your description just runs together. Absence of a comma indicates “of the”. The formatting is just something that is understood by land title/estate attorney/land surveyors...etc. pay special attention to those commas or lack of commas as it can make a big difference in what you are describing.

The entire purpose is to eliminate ambiguity...to ensure certainty.
Formatting and punctuation furthers that cause.

An example of ambiguity is the “east 1/4”....there are two of them...

[Tesorodeoro]

Personally, I like to start small and go bigger...aliquot to section, to township, range, meridian, county, then finally state. More than one way to skin a cat, but you have to stick to the basics.

[winners58]

I agree with using the 1/4 of a 1/4 for 10 acres in each
I've seen them described on other mining claims and how it sounds for 20 acres in my mind
N 1/2 of the E 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4
and the S 1/2 of the E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4
.

[Tesorodeoro]

I agree with using the 1/4 of a 1/4 for 10 acres in each
I've seen them described on other mining claims and how it sounds for 20 acres in my mind
N 1/2 of the E 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4
and the S 1/2 of the E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4
.

Why the use of “half of a half” to describe the standard 10 acre “quarter-quarter-quarter”?

EDIT: I see you edited after I responded. I believe the use of “1/2 of 1/2” leads to potential ambiguity when you start stepping out of a perfectly square mile section.
I believe quarter-quarter-quarter is preferred.

The rabbit hole is that the description we are discussing would very rarely result in 20 acres.

[Clay Diggins]

=========
Mount Diablo Meridian,California
T. 10 S., R. 21 E.,
sec 20, SE1/4SE1/4NE1/4, and NE1/4NE1/4SE1/4
The area described contains 20 acres.
=========

This is the exact form that the BLM and Title companies use except the county name is missing. It is correct by the published standards and the least confusing method of describing surveyed lands.

That being said as long as your description is logical you could use just about any of these methods to describe a mining claim location. The courts are very lenient when it comes to location notice descriptions.

You just need too ask yourself - can a DA at the BLM figure out what I'm describing even though they have been trained to use the simplified system with no "of the" and the proper use of commas? Have I sufficiently notified a prospector of the exact location of my claim? The answer to those questions could make a lot of difference years down the line when your claim is challenged or a mining company wants to purchase your claim.

I deal with these claim descriptions every working day. Once you understand the approved notation system it's like reading basic English. I see that about 30 - 50% of the non professional claim location descriptions are illogical and don't properly describe the claim by any reasonable method. That's frustrating for me personally and pretty much kills any value for a potential buyer.

If you've messed up an existing claim location description you can file an amendment with the correct description for $15 at the BLM and whatever recording fee your county charges. It's cheap insurance to make those amendment corrections.

Heavy Pans

[Bodfish Mike]

Thanks for the help guys I thunk I got it
Cheers Mike

[Rail Dawg]

Clay I have extensive notes I've taken over years of reading your words of wisdom.

Can the claim being discussed here also be described using metes and bounds? Or must it be described via aliquot?

Thanks as always.

Chuck