In 1988, a Condominium was recorded, this is the boundary description:
?ÿ
This is the area of the plat:
The description calls out the streets that are vacated, but makes no mention of the alley in block 3. But it does say "ADJOINING SAID BLOCKS, THAT WOULD ATTACH BY OPERATION OF LAW"
RCW?ÿ35.79.040
Title to vacated street or alley.
?ÿ
According to State law, 1/2 the alley should've attached; but it didn't according to the original survey. Subsequent surveys in that block show all of the alley attaching to the lots on the Northwesterly side of the Block.
?ÿ
34 Years is a long time; does the condominium have a claim to the Southeasterly half of the alley?
?ÿ
TIA to all of the good people of this board that respond; you guys are the best!
?ÿ
?ÿ
Dougie
?ÿ
For a bonus; here's Katie Upton, doing the Dougie:
?ÿ
First, would need to know if the entirety of the four streets named has been vacated or if only a portion of each has been vacated.?ÿ In each vacation action, was the purpose to eliminate traffic but retain rights for existing and future utilities??ÿ Or was it an absolute vacation??ÿ Perhaps Roosevelt still provides access to the alley in question.
The original plat was created in 1907; a small portion of the alley is providing access to lots 16 and 17, and it's called 5th PL S.
here's what it looks like today:
?ÿ
You would need to check the vacation ordinance.?ÿ From the description it does not indicate the alleys were vacated.?ÿ Without documented proof I would say the alley still exists.?ÿ
Seems like a lousy description of the condo plat. From this info I have no idea what portions of those streets were vacated and what portions were not vacated. So we know what lots and blocks are part of the condo plat but another source has to be found to find out what portions of the mentioned streets were vacated.
I think you need to hunt around for the paperwork that describes exactly what was vacated.
Wait....this sucks.?ÿ I THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A GIRLS GONE WILD video....
Carry on.?ÿ?ÿ
I'll digest?ÿ the OTHER type of vacation problems now...
Jeeesh.
????
Vacation with Kate. Of course the answer is yes.
The condo property may have owned the half of the alley but they could have deeded it to the neighbors before the condo was recorded?ÿ
If it??s being used, it??s hardly vacated, unless clearly shown otherwise.
So here's the real question:
What should I tell the client?
Hey. um, I did some research and found that the 34 year old survey is wrong, you should've gotten half the alley, and the 4 other subsequent are wrong too, everybody's wrong and I'm right.
What are their chances of gaining ownership of that 8 feet?
This is huge; there is row of trees that are getting tall enough to ruin the view of the sound. (That's what this is all about)
TIA (again) For all of the great responses from the good people of this board!
Dougie
?ÿ
Dougie,
?ÿ
I found 4 rec# 198602030832, 0833, 0834 and 0835?ÿ
?ÿ
not available online but maybe the answer to your question?ÿ
?ÿ
Sean
?ÿ
