Long time reader, first time poster here with and interesting situation regarding the vacation of a public alley with a portion of the alley abutting railroad right-of-way. All the land involved is located within a city with the railroad right-of-way having been granted to the U.P.R.R. by an Act of Congress in the mid 1860's. As a matter of fact, the rail line is the first transcontinental railroad to cross our great U.S of A. The adjacent land was later subdivided and platted into lots and blocks with public streets and alleys in 1888 by the Whiteaker family. The land surveyor completed a survey and mapped the land "and" by mistake (or oversight) included a portion of the railroad's right-of-way on the plat. The railroad right-of-way line is not straight and parallel with the centerline of the railroad. The right-of-way jogs south to accommodate water towers and coal chutes in place and used years ago. It is apparent to me the lots surveyed and mapped by the surveyor, and located within the railroad's right-of-way, are not in fact dedicated lots and therefore do not exist. That is consistent with how the records in the office of the Register of Deeds are now reflected.
The alley runs north and south with the east line of the alley abutting a portion of the right-of-way which is a north-south line, with the north end of the alley terminating on the south line of the main railroad right-of-way generally running in an east-west direction.
The problem: The present day owners of the platted lots, one owning the land east of the alley and south of the right-of-way, and the other owning the lots west of the alley and southerly of the main part of the railroad right-of-way, desire to vacate the alley. The City will approve the vacation of the alley, with ownership of the each half of the alley to revert to the abutting land owners as is normally the case.
The question: Once the alley is vacated: Does the Railroad have any ownership rights to the half of the alley abutting the portion of their right-of-way located on the east side of the alley? The right-of-way line abutting the alley is little over 100' long. From what I understand, the railroad is "not" entitled to any part of the vacated alley since the railroad was not a party to the dedication of the plat, as the plat only shows the Whiteaker's acknowledging the subdivision and dedication of their land on the plat as recorded in 1888. Their intention was to develop only the land they owned and it was as reflected on the legal description shown the plat.
The practice by the City has been to revert ownership of vacated alleys to the lots abutting the alley disregarding which subdivision the alley was originally platted and dedicated from. The City is considering treating this alley the same way allowing the railroad to gain ownership of land. The attorney for the City wants to notify the railroad and discover the railroad's interest in acquiring ownership of the half of the alley abutting the railroad's right-of-way. This seems unnecessary to me; as it is my understanding the east part of the alley abutting the length of the railroad's right-of-way should revert to the owner of the lots on the west side of the alley. In other words, the ownership of the entire width of alley for the length of the alley abutting railroad's right-of-way should belong to the owner of the lots on the west side of the alley.
Does anyone know of any case law or haves experience with this sort of situation? I would even like to find any references made in articles or books to support the case either way.
Thank you for your help. I am sorry about the length of my first post on this great site. Yes, I'm sucking up to get some good information from the pros!
APLS presented a seminar in November by Charlie Tucker of Farnsworth Group, Inc., headquarted in Denver, Colorado entitled: "Railroad Surveying 101". If you can make contact with him, he can maybe give you an answer. This was one eye opening seminar pertaining to working with railroad locations and anyone involved in the surveying profession needs to attend one of these seminars. In the booklet, the firm appears to have a Web Site at: www.f-w.com
Thanks for joining in. Welcome to the party.
You are correct in that land should revert to those who theoretically lost it. The railroad had no skin in the game from Day 1. They deserve nothing.
The same thing applies in adjoining subdivisions. If a street or alley came completely from one subdivider, it returns to the adjoiner in that subdivision in total. None came from the adjacent subdivision so they receive nothing.
In your case, the adjoiner on the west gets everything except that remnant of the east half of the alley abutting another (same) subdivision parcel landowner.
Where the fun starts is when the portion of street being vacated is very oddly-shaped.
Fun stuff! The wacky world of street/alley vacation. Listen to Holy-the railroad gets nothing. I don’t know how deep you want to get into this, but I expect that there are some interesting court cases in your state covering this. One of the hardest things a surveyor will do is convince an attorney or city official that you know what you’re talking about outside of measuring land.
I’m making some broad assumptions here:
The city will have nothing to say about who gets land after a vacation. That is because they only have a part ownership (estate) in the street. The adjoining land owners that are part of the subdivision that created the alley already have an ownership (also called reversionary rights) in the alley so when the alley is vacated the city only releases their rights to the alley and there is already an owner for the alley who was always there. Explaining that to the city and the attorney will be fun.
Of course, all that is wrong if the city has acquired fee title to the alley. That does happen but it’s rare.
I don’t know what state you’re in but this is a good court case that covers a number of issues regarding vacations:
Town of Moorcroft vs. Lang Wyoming Supreme Court
It gets really deep into estates in land and all the estates that can be attached to a street. That’s because if there is anything Wyoming is really serious about and understands maybe better than anywhere it’s the split estate issue.
Hey, if they won't listen to you; just direct them to this website.;-)
But please stop the city from contacting the railroad!
Mitch,
Looks like you have some good advice. Holy and Moe nailed it down very well. I just talked to UP this a.m. and the head of the Property Management is out of the office until the 13th. Charlie Tuckers number is: 303-692-8838..another interesting fact is: There are times the railroad right of way will not show up on title committments or title reports due to the fact that it was created by an Act of Congress. Fun stuff.
Pablo
You're using the word reversion but other description in your post indicates it may be a conveyance of unused municipal property.
If the municipality took fee title to the alley, then they can probably convey it away to whichever adjoiner they choose (subject to state and municiple laws governing the disposal of municipal lands). In this case the lot owners may well retain a pre-existing (pre-existing the municipal R.O.W. or ownership if the lots were sold before acceptance by the municipality)private easement over the alleyway, if the municipality conveys the fee to the RR. The pre-existing easement could also apply to other lot owners in the subdivision no matter who ends up with title.
If the RR is interested they should be made aware whether the alley will be subject to private easements or not. This could change their minds about whether they want it or not.
In my state, if the alley was originally dedicated as an easement, the easement is extinguished and the underlying fee ownership has the encumbrance removed. Many times the subdivsion is shown as having lot sidelines terminate at the r/w lines, when in fact they extend to the centerline if the r/w is interior to a subdivision.
In your case, the r/w appears to be on the exterior side of the subdivision so it would follow that the adjoining lots of the original fee/subdivision actually have full width ownership, not just to the centerline.
If the original dedication was in fee, then in my state, the public agency would be obligated to sell the lands with first offering at the appraised value to the immediately adjacent owners. If the immediately adjacent owners were not interested in purchasing at the appraised value, then the agency would then auction to the highest bidder.
Thanks for the insight. The alley was created by dedication of the plat for use by the public, the same as with the public streets. It is not construed to be an easement as done in some states.
In Nebraska there is a section in the Nebraska revised statutes section 16-611, which indicates that when an vacated by a first class city, the property shall vest on-half to the property owner on each side. This law seems to overlook several important issues and the exact situation that I have. I'm not an attorney or judge, just someone who is trying to track down some information on a unique problem.
In Nebraska there is a section in the Nebraska revised statutes section 16-611, which indicates that when an vacated by a first class city, the property shall vest on-half to the property owner on each side.
WOW!
Then that changes everything I said. It actually says SHALL vest one-half to the property owner on each side. And this doen't apply to only fee title streets? I would read that statute carefully but....the law is the law.
I think only a minority of states take the Nebraska approach. I think Illinois is another.
It could be important to know what rights the railroad has in it's right of way. If the grant was in fee simple then I would think of it as an adjoiner for the purpose of the vacation statute. If it is merely an easement subject to reversionary rights the case might be different.
Yeah, and that question is going to be difficult to answer without a court battle, unless one has already taken place on that RR in that area with similar circumstances. So many possibilities. I think asking the RR if they're interested, and getting them to sign off on it if not, seems like a good plan under the circumstances.
The statute seems clear enough, I would still be interested in whether private pre-existing easements have been recognized under those statutes (just curious).
Statutes change and trump common law (is that what the original question was wondering?).
16-611. Vacation of street; reversion to owners of adjacent property. Upon the vacation of any street the same so vacated shall be and remain the property of the city, but may be sold and conveyed by the city for any price that shall be agreed upon by the mayor and three-fourths of the city council. When an alley is vacated the same shall revert to the owner of the adjacent real estate one-half on each side thereof except that when any alley is taken wholly from one or more lots, upon the vacation thereof, it shall revert to the owner of the abutting property and become a part of such property. When a portion of a street or alley is vacated only on one side of the center thereof, the title of such land shall vest in the owner of the abutting property and become a part of such property.
This is what the Statute says from the internet. The "except when any alley is taken wholly from one or more lots" portion should be looked at very carefully.
Here is the Federal Appeals Court decision which basically categorizes the various states of railroad rights of way granted by the Federal Government:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1002736.html
My guess is that this case will fit into one of the three situations discussed in the case linked.
Not that I agree with the outcome of the case but the slicing and dicing of the ownership rights are interesting.