Hello! Long time creeper...first time poster ???
Long story short, homeowner selling his house ?? legal gets kicked. Recorder says it needs a new boundary and legal description.
Property is a simple rectangle, being the rear portion of two sublots with half the vacated alley along the west.?ÿ
Piece of cake. Draw it all up and submit to the tax map office for preapproval. Reviewer at the tax map office says nope??we need a replat instead. In his words, the replat is because the vacated alley is becoming part of the lots, effectively changing their dimensions from the original plat. -I don't share this viewpoint-
I ask if that??s standard practice and maybe I was just unaware of this requirement... Nope...they have been requiring resurveys for vacated alleys/streets, but the replat is a new direction they're taking and will include it in the next revision of our conveyance standards.
Thoughts? How do y??all politely handle these encounters?
Any legal/title thoughts about the ??new direction? they??re taking?
What State??ÿ Kind of depends on locality I would think.?ÿ Interesting that the recorder/tax mapper would have a say in land title? The plat is done and matter of record and the public has withdrawn their interest in the alley r/w via a vacation process.?ÿ Typically the vacated area attaches as a matter of law. (whatever than means).?ÿ Good luck, Jp
State matters but I have never seen a jurisdiction use a replat statute to require changes of legal vacation enuring to the subsequent adjacent lots. And honestly, I don't think they should be asking for new legal and boundary that would be a reformation of the current legal title held.
Isn't a vacation an ordinance that attaches that land to the property? I mean, if there is an act of the controlling legislative body...what more could you need?
?ÿ
Typically, when public rights of way are created simultaneously with the lots on a subdivision map, when right of way is vacated, the underlying fee title lots become unencumbered by the right of the public to travel.?ÿ Interior lots "expand" to the centerline, and exterior lots would "expand" to the subdivision boundary.
Building setbacks move, property tax is assessed on the strip - which can now be utilized by the lot owner.
This is an overreaching power grab by the county.?ÿ Squash it before it grows.
Squash it before it grows
?resize=499%2C594&ssl=1
In Ohio, the Recorders red mark legals that don't meet the County's conveyance standards. Usually they get one transfer then the next needs a new description. Each county is a little different with what they'll accept but it is usually POB or closure related from what I see.
Over the years verbiage has been added to some of the descriptions, often hand written, to include a portion of the adjoining vacated RW per Ord.###.
This particular County interprets that vacation verbiage as not meeting the conveyance standards.
I can understand that they're trying to clean up messy descriptions for the public's sake, but especially in this case, I don't think it's necessary or appropriate. And the rational that the sublots somehow grow is concerning.?ÿ
Just ask them to point you to the platting regulation requirement.?ÿ?ÿ
It's proposed? Then it's not in effect.
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
My reply would have been, "Good thing I got here before the new standards gave you the (supposed) authority to make such a silly requirement."
Then I would make sure the right people were in the crowd when they had the hearing for?ÿ the ordinance...
That's Idaho. Ymmv..
Even though the rights of the public have been done away with...any property along it could still have a remaining interest in it
?ÿ
?ÿ
Draft the additional piece on, call it out with reference to the vacation, the office that's requiring it, and the name of the guy you're talking to.?ÿ "Rights of others may exist"
Of course the state matters regarding vacations.
We have had exactly the same issue crop up here. The state Supreme Court has been emphatic about it. If the lot has reversionary rights, then the lot owner already owns to the centerline.?ÿ
There is no title issue.?ÿ
The strip from the edge of the alley to the centerline is owned in fee simple determinable by the public. When the alley is vacated the public ownership is extinguished, and the fee simple ownership of the lot owner now extends to the limits of the lot's reversionary rights without the split estate; the "dominate" estate of the public is removed.?ÿ
No need for a replat, in fact the court went further and declared that there is no need to acknowledge the ownership of the alley in deed grants, the lot is all you need to describe, because the lot already extended to the centerline, although, I would recommend including the vacated alley in any description going forward.?ÿ
?ÿ
We operate the same as Mighty Moe.?ÿ The lot doesn't "grow".?ÿ The owner owns another strip of ground which is described as being the vacated XXXXX half of the alley.?ÿ If the owner so desires he could sell that strip to the adjoiner on the other side of the alley or possibly purchase the other half of the alley from the adjoiner.
Thank you all for your thoughtful insight!
The gatekeeper at the TM office agreed to accept the boundary/legal instead of the replat at the direction of the Engineer.
Now he's asking me to reword my point of beginning because he doesn't like "Commencing for the same..." ????