Claiming R/W After Culdesac is Abandoned

Great question.

Had that exact situation once. Worked up what seemed to be the most logical plan and presented it to the landowners involved. Upon agreement, mutual quit claim deeds were filed for whichever portion needed to go to whomever. Fun descriptions, of course. But, it worked.

Holy Cow, post: 368505, member: 50 wrote: Great question.

Had that exact situation once. Worked up what seemed to be the most logical plan and presented it to the landowners involved. Upon agreement, mutual quit claim deeds were filed for whichever portion needed to go to whomever. Fun descriptions, of course. But, it worked.

Thanks for that.

Only problem here is that the adjoining property beat us to the platting and they have already consolidated their portion of the culdesac into their lot, and they claimed all the way into what should be my clients r/w. The result is a very small piece of land but my client has no intention of letting it go. For this reason, I am trying to find some documentation on the proper procedure to present to the attorney of the neighbor in hopes of getting them to sign a quit claim to the portion that they incorrectly claimed.

Can someone tell me how to upload a pdf that can be opened in order to see exactly what I'm trying to explain? Or I can insert an image if I can figure out how. Thanks.

If the right-of-way was platted on the subdivision plat, and accepted by the municipality, the right-of-way would have to be vacated by the city/county. Some municipalities have procedures in place for this action, including the assignment of land vacated. If a subdivision isn't fully developed, the platted lot lines and rights-of-way are still the original boundary lines. The act of extending the road through the lots later in life should have additional right-of-way acquisition deeds to help with the puzzle.

Something one of my mentors taught me is, "consolidation of properties does not extinguish platted lot lines". I hope my $0.02 helps. Good luck.

Kevin Hines, post: 368515, member: 8489 wrote: If the right-of-way was platted on the subdivision plat, and accepted by the municipality, the right-of-way would have to be vacated by the city/county. Some municipalities have procedures in place for this action, including the assignment of land vacated. If a subdivision isn't fully developed, the platted lot lines and rights-of-way are still the original boundary lines. The act of extending the road through the lots later in life should have additional right-of-way acquisition deeds to help with the puzzle.

Something one of my mentors taught me is, "consolidation of properties does not extinguish platted lot lines". I hope my $0.02 helps. Good luck.

Thanks Kevin. Common practice for the city we are working in for this particular project is for the r/w to be abandoned through an application process that goes through multiple city council hearings and ultimately gets recorded in a RW Book at our local clerk's office. The city refuses to go to any more trouble than that which leaves the adjoining property owners with nothing more than the r/w deed that describes the abandoned r/w. Once this is officially abandoned, we typically plat the portion of the r/w that our client has rights to (determined by the local subdivision reg's, this particular situation is not addressed in these regs).

All that said, the right of way has been officially abandoned, we are simply trying to plat the portion of this abandoned r/w that seems to have been incorrectly platted with the adjoining property, in with our existing lot. I realize that a quit claim deed from the adjoining property owner would be optimal, but I would like to present some documentation as it pertains to proper procedure of claiming this r/w to them in order to make my case as to why they should quite claim this small sliver back to our client.

All I have at this point is my personal opinion and assumption that this right of way should be claimed from existing lot corners, perpendicular to the new r/w line which is 30' from the centerline of the extended street.

I think three posts and you can post a picture.
Try now.

Scott Zelenak, post: 368537, member: 327 wrote: I think three posts and you can post a picture.
Try now.

Only thing I see is an option to "insert edit image" but it asks me for the image url. I just want to attached a pdf or jpg like you would in an email.

It was right in front of me the whole time, just saw the button labelled "upload a file" at the bottom right of the post. See attached exhibit.

Kevin Hines, post: 368515, member: 8489 wrote: Something one of my mentors taught me is, "consolidation of properties does not extinguish platted lot lines". I hope my $0.02 helps. Good luck.

I have been taught the same thing, but what is the big deal if a platted lot line runs through the middle of the property after being adjusted via an approved property line adjustment. In this area it will always show up on the tax assessor‰Ûªs map (unless re-platted) but it will be dotted and shown with less weight for informational purposes by county mapping. I ask because I hear what you are saying quite frequently and always wonder if I am missing some underlying important fact about the platted line. Thanks for the discussion, Jon

Should be "upload a file" under text box?

Edit: you beat me to the posting solution.

My first view would be to see what happens when all original lot lines are extended into the cul-de-sac. Then reasonable modifications need to be agreed upon by adjoiners. No one person gets to decide for everyone else.

Generally the city can vacate but has no say in the allocation of the land, that is covered by the lot owners reversionary rights that they already hold.
If the city acquired the street in fee they will have a say, but if the street was created as a dedication to the public then they don't.

Many examples are in Wattles, it may not cover your exact situation but it may be helpful.

Is there not a standard procedure for this type of issue? For example, it is standard procedure that when a 60' r/w is abandoned, the owners on each side split the r/w and take 30' each.

Either way, it seems like at the very most, the adjoining property would only have rights to claim up to the perpendicular line from our corner to the new r/w. Just don't have anything to back up that theory.

Thanks.

agrimensor06, post: 368557, member: 11020 wrote: Is there not a standard procedure for this type of issue? For example, it is standard procedure that when a 60' r/w is abandoned, the owners on each side split the r/w and take 30' each.

Either way, it seems like at the very most, the adjoining property would only have rights to claim up to the perpendicular line from our corner to the new r/w. Just don't have anything to back up that theory.

Thanks.

The lot owner gets his reversionary rights, whatever that may be. If a subdivision was created west of a section line and a 60 street was dedicated to the public, then years later a subdivision to the east was platted along that street, only the lots to the west will get land when the street is vacated.
The reason is that they have reversionary rights, where the east lots don't.

Brown's Boundary Control & Legal Principles (Robillard, Wilson & Brown) and Easements Relating to Land Surveying and Title Examination (Wilson) may shed some light on your situation.

Edit: This may be an exercise in proportionate gain or proration.

MightyMoe, post: 368564, member: 700 wrote: The lot owner gets his reversionary rights, whatever that may be. If a subdivision was created west of a section line and a 60 street was dedicated to the public, then years later a subdivision to the east was platted along that street, only the lots to the west will get land when the street is vacated.
The reason is that they have reversionary rights, where the east lots don't.

That makes sense. In this case, the right of way was dedicated to the city in fee simple and was taken out of the middle of an existing tract when the subdivision was created. It wouldn't appear that anyone touching the former r/w would retain any reversionary rights over the others considering it was all created out of the same parent tract and at the same time.

Thanks for all the responses!

"Evidence and Procedures for Boundary Location" Brown, Robillard, and Wilson. Chapter 13 "Apportionment Procedures for Land and Water Boundaries"

The original plat determines the reversionary rights of the lot owners. With a circular cul-de-sac, the reversionary rights extend from the sideline (former) lot corner to the radius point of the cul-de-sac. That's why the lot lines should be originally platted normal (radial) to the cul-de-sac.

Any portion of the right of way that has been abandoned (vacated) will revert in accordance with the original plan. The landowners may choose to make a more logical redistribution of the boundaries, but that's entirely up to them. The municipality would have no say in the distribution or redistribution of the reversionary rights.

JBS