Another Gray Area

yes

How long has the "farm road" been in use? There could be a prescriptive easement attributed to the use of said road.

If they do still want to purchase the triangle shaped piece, and the state road is in fact a prescriptive right-of-way, you would need to go to the centerline.

I'm not sure how long, but the farm road has been there quite a few years. If the current owners were not selling they would continue using the road and this not be an issue. They want clear title for selling purposes just to clean up the issue. Also, property "B" owns on both sides of the state road.

It would probably be cleaner over the long run if you used C/L. Never know what tomorrow may bring and although that road probably will never be vacated in our lifetime and vacation questions come into play, it might.
jud

Why would you leave the the right of way area in the ownership of the original owner and not transfer it with the 0.04 acres?

If the State Route road is an easement, the property line goes to the centerline of the road. The entire tract is shown in magenta. In your legal description give an entire acreage and then state that x.xxx acres of the total (shown in green) is reserved for State Route right-of-way purposes. Is that bend point on the right-of-way line by the southeast corner of the bridge? You might have an extra point there if it isn't on the line.

Where the property line is depends on how the traveled way was created and how the underlying lands were describe or disposed of. Ownership does not always go to Center line, the actions of the owners is what determines that, what and how to dispose of vacated lands required research.
jud

I agree with J.Penry.

The common law presumption when fronting on a prescriptive right of way (easement) is that 1/2 of the easement is appurtenant to your property and the title line follows the centerline of the right of way.

That doesn't mean, however, that your client should pay full value to the centerline. the bed of the road (just like the bed of a stream) has no value, so I'd include a net and gross acreage figure so payment can be based upon the net while the description includes the gross.

JBS

Does not the underlying ownership determine who the act of vacation releases the use of the lands back to. In a Platted subdivision where all are created simultaneously, each would get half, the only question being the side lines. Rural areas are different, often the ownership was on both sides when the easement was created, the acts of dividing those lands can change the underlying ownership and effect who gets what upon vacation, at least that is what I have thought for years. The easy standard rule does not always reflect the act of the owners when lands are sold and it should not, the right to use the vacated lands should always return to the under lying owner, I doubt that any easement provides for the government to dispose of non fee controlled lands to anyone but the fee owner when the lands are held in fee.
jud

I think that the line from the SE corner of the ROW should run perpendicular to the centerline of the road and not be an extension of the property line.

The common-law presumption is that the boundary should extend to the centerline. A surveyor and a landowner should have a very good reason for not following the common-law rule. Yes. There are conditions where a land surveyor (hopefully with specific instructions by the owner) has divided land with the entire underlying fee for the roadway retained entirely within a single parcel. It's generally a bad idea for a good number of reasons and can cause all sorts of grief to future adjoining landowners. In spite of those reasons, and by expressed intention to do something contrary, it's been known to happen.

JBS

I agree with your assessment and write descriptions to Center Line for land divisions unless instructed otherwise. There is more one owner units of land where owners own all of the ROW than you would think. Sometimes with some good reasoning, hence my comment that vacations require research. I bristle more than I should when some rule is quoted as being the final word, I want the exceptions noted and considered, reason, so surveyors will look for those exceptions and stop continuing the false assumption there are no exceptions to look for. The simpler the rule, the greater the risk that an exception will bite, unless you look for them.
jud

Wouldn't a recorded easement for ingress/egress be sufficient instead of carving out a new parcel?

> I agree with your assessment and write descriptions to Center Line for land divisions unless instructed otherwise. There is more one owner units of land where owners own all of the ROW than you would think. Sometimes with some good reasoning, hence my comment that vacations require research.
I agree as well with your's, jud. The surveyor always has to do the investigation to find out what's up. Here, the given was a prescriptive easement and the issue was how to describe the parcel for the first time. The surveyor should always follow the presumption unless there is a directive to do otherwise by the client. Even then, the surveyor (who should know more about future problems caused when the presumption is not followed) should attempt to discover why the client would want to create a boundary in conflict with the presumption. If they insist, then the surveyor's description should expressly exclude any portion of the fee title under the road bed. It's not good enough to even state to the right of way line, thence along said right of way line. The presumption is there for a lot of really good reasons, future vacation of the right of way is only one of them.
>I bristle more than I should when some rule is quoted as being the final word, I want the exceptions noted and considered, reason, so surveyors will look for those exceptions and stop continuing the false assumption there are no exceptions to look for. The simpler the rule, the greater the risk that an exception will bite, unless you look for them.
Presumptions of law are never the final word and are never intended as the final word. Presumptions are given as the starting point. If the surveyor can't find the evidence which leads them away from the presumption, then they're left at the starting point. Surveyors seem to spend too much time, in my opinion, both in not knowing where to start and ignoring evidence which will lead them to another solution. Failing to recognize a simple presumption results in surveyors improperly creating and describing the boundary where the law presumes it to be.

JBS

I like the idea of cleaning up little messes like this whenever feasible. Considering the minor area involved, I would recommend going with the largest tract agreeable to the current owner. I would also recommend having a perpendicular line from state road centerline to some point clearly past the apparent prescriptive state road right-of-way line to prevent future debates.

Another Gray Area in the Gray Area

Not to hijack here, but...
I have worked to resolve these little issues and it never occurred to me that there was an issue with these things until years ago when I was advised by an attorney that there would be a hold up on the sale of a sliver of land while they got clearance from any lien holders to do the transaction. He said that if there were liens on either of the properties, the holder of the lien had a say in what happened to the subject of the lien, and selling a portion of the subject property could even have the note called due in whole.
One potential client had a high 5-figure set of plans for a three car garage/office/shop trashed because a mortgage company wouldn't release a 10'x30' triangle from the neighbor. Not a happy fellow. The architect just assumed they could buy the sliver.
I have since advised potential clients to have an attorney check if there a mortgages or liens before I even hit the field, and that bit of advice has saved some folks from a helluva mess.