-
Looking for a copy of BOundary Control and Legal Principles, 1st Ed.
Hello: I am looking for a copy of the first edition of Boundary Control and Legal Principles. If you have one, please message me. I would like to know whether the subject of reversionary interests is covered. Thank you.
-
21 Replies
-
I found mine at Alibris.com. I think I paid something like $25. They can go for much more. But they aren’t available every day, as subsequent editions are.
The title of Chapter 6 is Locating Reversion Rights . So yes, it’s covered.
-
Any way you can tell me whether there are figures showing how reversionary interests in abandoned streets are apportioned? I have the second edition which shows hashed lines running from the center line of the street to the intersection of the side lot lines with the street boundary. I have a legal case I am handling that involves a platted easement. We are litigating the title to the easement, and the plat shows hashed lines extending from the abutting lots to the center line of the easement. The plat was recorded about the time the First Edition was printed.
-
The 1st edition figures of that chapter are identical to those in the 2nd edition. There is very little if any difference in the text as well. Some punctuation and formatting changes, perhaps. The sections are numbered differently. But if you have the 2nd edition, you pretty much have the corresponding chapter in the 1st edition.
-
Thank you. Trying to sort out a big dispute over the ownership of about 20 acres of land in Palm Beach County. I’ve attached the plats to another post if you care to take a look.
-
I see that you have posted a “Plat Opinion” thread by looking at your activity list, but I’m not seeing the actual post. That may be because it is only your 4th posting. I think Wendell has a prohibition against newly signed up people posting attachments. To discourage spammers.
-
That must be it. It’s a strange case. Basically, a developer granted an easement to a water management district here in Florida in 1956. In 1958, the developer platted several sections of land through which this easement runs. Each of these plats lists the centerline of the easement as its boundary. The developer sold off all the lots abutting the canal easement. Where the side lot lines intersect with the easement boundary, they become hashed and extend to the plat boundary, which is again, the centerline of the easement. In areas where the easement curves, the hashed lines extend at right angles to the centerline back to the intersection of side lot lines. In the late fifties/early sixties, the Water Management District dredged the easement and left about sixty feet of uplands between the easement boundary and the canal. The property owners who own the abutting lots have always treated the uplands within the easement as their own, have built docks, etc. This canal connects to the ICW and Lake Worth, which in turn connects to the Atlantic Ocean via the Lake Worth Inlet. Recently, the developer’s son began sending letters to people saying he still owns the land burdened by the easement, and threatening to sell it on the open market if they don’t purchase from him. He has been somewhat successful in holding these folks up for money.
-
The “Plat Opinion” post has two of the plats attached, if it gets unlocked.
-
The developers son is risking a trip to the penitentiary. Sounds pretty scummy.
-
If it is of your interest, Donald A. Wilson has a good book on easements, and talks in-depth about reversion rights with many illustrations:
Easements Relating to Land Surveying and Title Examination, 1st Ed.
-
I agree, unfortunately the county property appraiser’s office has washed its hands of the matter. They have been able to shake down somewhere between 700k and 1mm out of people so far.
-
Thanks. I will take a look.
-
This is the Reversionary Rights Chapter in Brown’s first edition:
-
Thank you Dave.
-
In my opinion the, the canal and North Lake are access ways and should be treated as a public road. The Canal company has maintained their traveled way, whether for drainage or access use. The Canal Company may have head rights to any dock permit fees, but not the developer’s son. Unless the developer’s son has paid taxes on and maintained the grass he has little claim of any ownership. As a public road the individual lot owner does not pay taxes on public easement area but should maintain the non traveled way. The dashed lines establish the fee abandonment lines should the easement cease to exist to each abutting lot, to which it should revert. The developer’s son may own North Lake.
Paul in PA
-
Is the canal man made? If so, it is not subject to accretion or erosion.
The same is true in New Jersey with man-made lagoons where tide waters did not formerly flow (ie a tributary was not converted to a 100 ft wide lagoon) If your lot is 100 feet deep and your bulkhead is at 104 feet from the right of way line, your property ends at 100 feet from the road. You cannot take title to the extra 4 feet.
It’s a right of way. As an example, you cannot take title to the area between your frontage and curbing just because the physical road is 30 feet wide on a 50 foot right of way.
Lastly, let’s look at imperceptible change. If people are bulkheading and filling in property, they have no right to the formerly flowed waters without a grant from the state or developer who owns the waterway IMHO.
And, from an adverse possession standpoint, is the canal a private right of way or no? Who maintains it? If it is a government agency then your buggered. If the canal is for the greater public good, you’re buggered.
My two cents.
-
Actually, in Florida, the abutting owners typically own legal title to the land burdened by street rights-of-way if there has been a common law dedication. You cannot really do anything with that title, but from a legal standpoint, they own it.
There are really only two potential outcomes in this case. Either the developer’s son is correct and he still owns the land burdened by the right-of-way, or he is wrong and the abutting owners also own the land burdened by the right of way. The SFWMD only has an easement over someone’s private property, albeit one that allows them to excavate all of it and control it, even to the exclusion of the owner.
-
It’s almost universal that the presumption is the land under easements transfers with the Deeds to the adjoining lot. This is bolstered by the way the lots are depicted on the Plat. The Lot owners can use the land outside the canal but inside the easement in any manner that doesn’t interfere with the canal.
In order to overcome the presumption the original Deeds to the lots would have to clearly state the underlying fee wasn’t included.
-
Unless the canal easement is being vacated by the flood control district, this is not a reversion issue. It’s a title issue about who owns the underlying fee, the son or the individual lot owners.
Since there would have been no other reason to include the dashed lines to the centerline of the easement, it appears clear what the intent of the original subdivider was to include those areas within the canal easement with the adjacent lots. Further strengthening that is the “Not Included” area, which appears to indicate a portion of a parent tract reserved by the original subdivider. There is no such notation and no other separate lot or tract designation of the portion of the canal easement adjacent to the lots within the subdivision.
I think the lot owners have a very good basis for a slander of title claim against the unscupulous son of the subdivider/developer. That goes for the lawyer he road in on too as any competent attorney should have seen the inherent weakness of the son’s claim.
-
“In the late fifties/early sixties, the Water Management District dredged the easement and left about sixty feet of uplands between the easement boundary and the canal. The property owners who own the abutting lots have always treated the uplands within the easement as their own, have built docks, etc.”
This may be of interest:
-
[SS296] (5)
Log in to reply.