The entity I work for is encumbered by a County right-of-way. The County's right-of-way is San Bruno Avenue shown on the attached image. The County doesn't want to maintain that road, and the entity I work for does. Neither the County, nor the entity I work for want to close this road.
The current solution is for the County to quitclaim their right-of-way easement to my entity, but not vacate the street per state highways code. My understanding is, as long as the road isn't vacated per state law, the property is still encumbered by a road, it is just not the County's liability any longer.
The County believes the quitclaim and vacation, must be done together. The vacation process is not advisable because it would require Supervisors, hearings, longer time without being able to actually maintain the road, and actual closure of the road.
I'm hoping to find someone who works/has worked with a quasi-governmental agency that took control/ownership of a public road, while that road still remained opened to the public. This is in California.
I have seen agreements to maintain roadways of adjacent public agencies but, guess what, it involves Boards of Directors/Supervisors to approve the agreement.
This still keeps it as a public road, and allows franchise public utilities to maintain their facilities..
....the County to quitclaim their right-of-way easement to my entity, but not vacate the street ....
Have their cake and eat it, too?
A right of way is an easement in most cases. So I'm not seeing how this plan can work. Just what are you meaning by "street"? The physical curbs and pavement?
Perhaps the intent is to vacate the right of way while retaining a utility easement??ÿ?ÿ
@norman-oklahoma We want them to have their cake, eat it too, and not even pay for it.
the goal is to transfer all liability to my entity and still have the road remain open and public.?ÿ We don't have long term plans to close the road, but to alter our private roads feeding into this Count right-of-way.?ÿ If this remains under the County's control, we will be delay by injecting another entities bureaucracy into our development process.
?ÿ
@warren-smith We are trying to avoid Supervisors, because it becomes political. An agreement doesn't work, because, at best, we could only maintain our percentage of usage, when we want to maintain the whole thing. We want the road to remain, we just want to "own" the deeded right-of-way on our property.
I've never heard of quitclaiming an easement.
@bstrand Quitclaim may not be the right deed, but it would be a transfer deed (quitclaim is a type). the state has recorded deeds of relinquishment, which I would view as a quitclaim, when they would transfer State roads to local municipalities.
Hoe was the easement created??ÿ
I don't know a lot about California, but often local government road easements are not "owned" by the local government?ÿ The easements are dedicated to the public?ÿ and the local government manages then in trust for the public. This can be?ÿ separate?ÿ from the right to, or the responsiblity to, maintain a road in the easement.?ÿ
Most jurisdictions don't take eliminating a public right lightly, so I would be surprised if they could give away they public's right to use the easement without public involvement, which is what you seem to be asking for, even if you don't intend, at this time, to restrict public use.?ÿ A maintenance agreement would probably be easier.?ÿ
Of course an easement can be quit claimed away. A quit claim transfers any rights the grantor has to the described parcel, but I don't think that will work here.
@aliquot?ÿ The easement was created by granting a County Highway by the prior owner specifically to the County.?ÿ This street was not dedicated on any map or plat.?ÿ We are the successor in fee title.
My entity wants the responsibility and wants to road to remain, we don't want to eliminate the public right.?ÿ That is why my though was to just quitclaim the responsibility of the easement, but not go through the vacation process.?ÿ The County would still have the road on their street index, and would technically collect tax funds for it, they just wouldn't be the agency that decides when it is maintained, or approved encroachment permits, like drain lines (reserved by the original easement) or railway (also reserved by the original easement).?ÿ
A maintenance agreement would still require the County to maintain or pay for a portion, which they do not want to do.?ÿ So we have this island of un-maintained pavement/road surrounded by improved pavement.?ÿ Unfortunately, for us to maintain that portion we need to control that portion.
If vacation is the only remedy, then so be it.?ÿ We should be able to petition to close the road as we own all the property surrounding this road and all that it serves.?ÿ The County wants to get rid of it, and we want to take it, but doing a vacation just make the process longer and potentially more litigious.?ÿ
?ÿ
Have them sell it to you for $1.
Anybody have examples where a City or County transferred the right-of-way to a private entity (hospital, private college, large industrial, etc...), and that road was still open as a public thoroughfare, and that isn't just a joint use maintenance agreement?
Sure, that makes sense. I was thinking about it more in the sense that if an easement benefits a party and that party ceases to claim an interest in that benefit then who exactly is the easement benefiting anymore? Anyway, I assumed this is why easements, at least in my short experience, were always vacated.
@jaro Hell we'd gladly pay them a couple of grand for it. We just want to make sure we are transferring title in a way allowed by law. I understand that transferring title to and vacation of a road, are separate and must be performed by separate actions.
When a city vacates a road on a subdivision, they absolve their right, but do not convey title. When a county road easement is annex by a city, the city would quitclaim their county road easement, even though the road remains.
I understand this is a bizzaro world action, but we don't want people coming off the highway, then go through tattered pavement to reach us. Perception is a high priority, and we don't like out clients to be disappointed.
the goal is to transfer all liability to my entity and still have the road remain open and public.
?ÿ
What I meant was you are looking for the city to quitclaim away the easement, and yet still retain the easement.?ÿ You can't have both.?ÿ
?ÿ
If this remains under the County's control, we will be delay by injecting another entities bureaucracy into our development process.
Wouldn't it be great if we could wave a magic pen and absolve ourselves from having to deal with government red tape?
?ÿ
?ÿ
I don't know how it works in California. But I would expect the basic public policy goals to be similar around the country. Here in Vermont, a municipality that wants to "throw up a road" must follow a specific legal process. The purpose is to protect the rights of people who adjoin or travel over a road to be heard, and protect their right to passage, maintenance of the road, snow plowing, etc. If no one else abuts the road, and no one uses it except to visit your entity, the legal process might go pretty smoothly; otherwise, not so much.
@norman-oklahoma Not quitclaim away the easement, but quitclaim the responsibility of the easement, and not vacate the street. We want the road, the County wants the road. We want to pay to improve the road, but cannot because the improvements aren't ours.
Reading up on the Civil Code & the merger doctrine, it is not absolute that we could not own the right-of-way easement & be the underlying fee owner.
We are a government entity, just not a City in the County the road is located in. It would be nice if there wasn't any red tape.
I think keep telling everyone to just quitclaim the easement, and let someone else tell us no. All parties that would say no (city, county & us), are all saying yes. The lawyers are skeptical, but possession is 9/10 law. A deed saying the county quitclaim there easement to us, but explicitly state the road is not vacated and include a reversionary clause if contested.
You need the county equivalent of an ILMA (Interagency Land Management Agreement). ILMAs are traditionally between Federal agencies. Some states / maybe all?ÿ have some version of an ILMA (the ones I've seen have a slightly different name) that they use when dealing with other state agencies or political subdivisions of the state (counties/municipalities/etc.) There may be protocol for such a thing in your county - if not, you'll need to have an attorney conjure one up - in either case you'll want a county attorney to review it to ensure that it complies with code. If the agencies involved have been delegated authority to assign land management rights then it won't have to become political. I'd bet you a pitcher of good beer that it will offend someone.
The holder of the right-of-way cannot sell, give, trade or otherwise transfer it without consent of the fee owner. I used to clean up these messes for a living and it's expensive.
Unless the county owns that strip of land they only have an easement.?ÿ The other adjoiner would be entitled to a share of the strip if the road were to be vacated.?ÿ Buyout the adjoiner first.
I don't think your first statement holds true in California. The state transfers easements they condemn against private property owners, to local municipalities without the underlying fee owners consent. We have had the State transfer their easements/rights-of-way to local municipalities, where we are the fee owners, for almost 80 years.
