Claiming Lot vs Aliquot Part

[Rail Dawg]

When you claim say the N1/2 of a Lot do you put the description in the NOL/COL using the word Lot or do you describe it as aliquot parts?

I've heard the BLM prefers describing the claim in aliquot parts.

In other words treat the Lot as say N1/2NW1/4NW1/4

What are your thoughts on this?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Goldwasher]

one thing i'm not certain on is when you have to claim a "whole " lot or can claim a portion.

One of our claims is a lot. Blm said it all had to be claimed. 22acres +/-

It is described by lot # within the section vs our neighboring claim that is described by Aliquot Part. I.E. 1/2 of the corner in a quarter section.

there are several more "lots" in the area one is 44 acres and claimed as a lot there are some smaller than 20 acres too.

There are two patents that seem to be the reason for the lots creation.

I have heard of people who claim part of a lot but, I can't find the law on how or why.

Mainly because it isn't something I've had to tackle.

Cue Barry

 

[Rail Dawg]

one thing i'm not certain on is when you have to claim a "whole " lot or can claim a portion.

One of our claims is a lot. Blm said it all had to be claimed. 22acres +/-

It is described by lot # within the section vs our neighboring claim that is described by Aliquot Part. I.E. 1/2 of the corner in a quarter section.

there are several more "lots" in the area one is 44 acres and claimed as a lot there are some smaller than 20 acres too.

There are two patents that seem to be the reason for the lots creation.

I have heard of people who claim part of a lot but, I can't find the law on how or why.

Mainly because it isn't something I've had to tackle.

Cue Barry

I did claim several Lots and did so with the N1/2NW1/2NW1/2 kind of method.

I always split the Lots to 20 acres or less because I understand 1 claim locator can't claim more than 20 acres.

The BLM accepted it.

It goes through the BLM adjudicator who I believe ensures the claim being filed conforms to the PLSS.

But I was also reading a training handbook for the BLM and it talks about simply saying N1/2 Lot 1.

When you look at LR2000 I don't think we ever see Lots in the description... it's always aliquot.

Maybe this isn't important and maybe it is?

 

[winners58]

I've seen them accept 1/2 Lots described by aliquot part and don't think they can void a claim
unless they notify you that there's a problem and give a chance to correct it.
if they don't catch it, they will take your money, not sure if you are protected from over filers or they wont void it if it is sold.
(if something cant be corrected by the previous owner of record because he no longer holds interest in the claim it is void at the time of transfer).

from Handbook H-3830 https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/Media_Library_BLM_Policy_H 3830_1.pdf
The term “complete lots” comes from the definition of lots in the Manual of Surveying Instructions. This is an excerpt of the appropriate section:
“10·200. Lots, whether those (1) on the north and west boundaries of a township, (2) created by segregation and patenting of lode mining claims, (3) created by meandered bodies of water, or (4) created by other special surveys, are a legal subdivision of official surveys. The subdivision of such lots into smaller legal subdivisions requires an official survey. A location certificate description "W 1/2of lot 1" does not conform and cannot be made to conform to the rectangular or legal subdivisions of the PLSS, and an official survey of the land located and claimed is necessary (Holmes Placer, 29 Pub. Lands Dec. 368 (1899)).”

So, based on the above, this is why if a claim takes in only a portion of a lot, the whole claim must be described by metes and bounds.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Winners has it right.

I would point out that a mining claim locator is only required to locate their claim to the nearest quarter section. Not the best plan of action but it's enough for the BLM.

When in doubt include a narrative description as well as a metes and bounds description and map.

Heavy Pans

 

[Goldwasher]

I did claim several Lots and did so with the N1/2NW1/2NW1/2 kind of method.

I always split the Lots to 20 acres or less because I understand 1 claim locator can't claim more than 20 acres.

The BLM accepted it.

It goes through the BLM adjudicator who I believe ensures the claim being filed conforms to the PLSS.

But I was also reading a training handbook for the BLM and it talks about simply saying N1/2 Lot 1.

When you look at LR2000 I don't think we ever see Lots in the description... it's always aliquot.

Maybe this isn't important and maybe it is?

in the secondary subdivision survey you will see numerous places in sections labeled "L3" or "L4" etc.

Those are lots. There will be a set size given. like 22.3 acres.

So, I guess BLM should have said if you don't want the whole lot you will have do locate using metes and bounds?

Per our one claim I don't mind we wanted all of it. And yes, you do need two locators for twenty three acres and would need three forty one acres.

 

[Rail Dawg]

Good stuff.

We have 23 claims where we divided each lot into two parts.

There were two Nevada Division of Minerals COL forms to choose from.

One was aliquot and the other simply a placer claim form.

All around us are claims on lots and I don't see any indication that they were done by metes and bounds.

That doesn't mean it's right just an observation.

We do provide detailed maps when filing the COL's.

Question for you guys:

I can put my wife on the paperwork and turn the two claims on the lots into just one claim.

Is that something worth pursuing?

I guess someone could possibly try to get our claims ruled invalid but I don't think it would be worth all the hassles of court time and such.

Moving forward I think I'll locate the claims with my wife and get the whole lot as just one claim.