Hi all.
I am working on a project in an old 1855 plat. Part of the property has an unimproved platted street running through it. The street has never been approved and is not used by the city, but there is no record of it ever being formerly vacated. This area is a little messy title wise due to an adjacent State Highway and Railroad that have moved multiple times over the years.
In 1991 there was a Quiet Title Action Judgment recorded that deliberately included the street right-of-way in the description, which was awarded to the previous owner of the property that is now owned by my client.
Would the awarding of a title through a Quiet Title Action be enough to vacate a platted city street or would the street need to be vacated by the City through official channels?
The property is in Minnesota.
Thanks in advance for any guidance on this.
This may not apply, but I believe the city would have to be a party in a quit title suit to rule on city land. I can tell you after testifying in several county lawsuits, in the state of Colorado, the only way a county road can be vacated is for a majority of the board of commissioners to record a 'yes' resolution
There is quite a bit of variation in how public ROWs are treated between jurisdictions. My guess is that whatever entity that would have jurisdiction over the ROW would need to be a specifically named party, but better ask someone who knows MN well.?ÿ
Since it's a legal question, I can't give a hard and fast answer. But having read a good many Minnesota Torrens case files, I can tell you that the first thing the Examiner of Titles does is make a list of every possible party that might have an interest in the property, and send out notices to them.
A Torrens case certainly quiets title. Once the District Court has ruled and the owner is issued a Certificate of Title, no one else has any claim on the property unless they're listed on the Certificate. That's all explained pretty clearly in Mn Stats. Chapter 508.
In the case of abstract property, I don't know of any Minnesota law that spells out the effect of a quiet title action, or describes how it should be conducted. I think the first question an attorney would ask is whether the city was named in this case. Did they get a notice, and have the opportunity to appear in court and argue that their interest in the street should be left alone?
If there is a legal question of concern to the client, their attorney would be the logical person to deal with it. If you'd just like to know for your own information, you could try to find an attorney to ask. One way to do it would be to attend a boundary law seminar and buttonhole the attorney who's presenting it.
"it's not used by the city"?ÿ Let me guess, it is used by an owner of another platted lot??ÿ Or someone wants to use it??ÿ I'm guessing the quiet title is good enough to vacate municipal claims whether torrens or abstract, under presented facts.?ÿ But i wonder about underlying private easements that might exist. Dealing with something similar where the attorneys wanted the appellate court (upheld quiet title from trial court) to weigh in on what the grant of quiet title at below court means in regard to easement over the land.?ÿ They refused to address it because not argued below; so now one side trying to appeal to highest court on that issue (quiet title not fully addressed in decision).
?ÿ
You say that the Quiet Title action was recorded - so what does the text of the decision say? It may address your question directly, or may not, which could be why you are asking about what is essentially an interpretation of the decision.
You may be more familiar with MN law then me, but many states have statutory requirments to vacate a public ROW. In those states a quite title that didn??t include the ROW managing authority as a part won't vacate the ROW.?ÿ
In general, quite title actions are only concerned with fee ownership and don't effect easements, but they can. The details matter.?ÿ
You may be more familiar with MN law then me, but many states have statutory requirments to vacate a public ROW. In those states a quite title that didn??t include the ROW managing authority as a part won't vacate the ROW.?ÿ
In general, quite title actions are only concerned with fee ownership and don't effect easements, but they can. The details matter.?ÿ
I think this is the perfect answer.?ÿ I think it would be safe to assume the street would need to be vacated through a separate instrument and that the quiet judgment would not have any jurisdiction over the street as it, although not used or maintained, appears to be in the City's or Town's ownership.?ÿ (Unless the original plat states that the local authority does NOT accept the R/W, dedicates, streets, etc.).
Thanks for the replies. The City was not named in the Quiet Title Action, so I agree that the Street still officially exists, since the City did not have a chance to argue their case in court.
?ÿ
Thanks again.
@aliquot Yeah, but the facts presented don't necessarily establish a public right of way. I would argue the municipality didn't need to be notified in this case.
@aliquot Yeah, but the facts presented don't necessarily establish a public right of way. I would argue the municipality didn't need to be notified in this case.
Once an offer of a public easement is on the table (the plat) it doesn't require govement action for the public to accept it. That is why a formal vacation process with public notice is required in many states.?ÿ
@aliquot Yeah, but the facts presented don't necessarily establish a public right of way. I would argue the municipality didn't need to be notified in this case.
Once an offer of a public easement is on the table (the plat) it doesn't require govement action for the public to accept it. That is why a formal vacation process with public notice is required in many states.?ÿ
?ÿ
I would disagree with you, and agree with Mr. Frymire regarding the notification of the municipality. The offer of dedication in this case doesn't appear to have been accepted by the municipality. If there are private property owners in the subdivision using the street, those are private rights, and even if the municipality had accepted the offer of dedication, the vacation of the municipal/public rights would have no effect on private rights. Evidence for municipal/public acceptance can be in several forms, including but not limited to maintenance, utility installation, formal acceptance, use by the general public, etc. Therefore, I contend that since there appears there was not acceptance of the offer of dedication, there was no need to notify the municipality. Of course, every state is different, and not knowing all the facts, but only the narrative presented by the OP, this is merely my opinion.?ÿ
And another golden Nugget of Surveying Information that the younger or newer up and coming on the path or even just working in the arena of land surveying should tuck away for that future use maybe....
Damn I love this site!!
It does work the way you say in Texas. I am to lazy to research MN law, but your way of looking at things doesn't apply in many states.?ÿ
In other states an offer of a public ROW is more easily accepted. When people use the area that was offered it is accepted, there isn't a second prescriptive right created underlying the public ROW (although in rare instances one can be created if the goverment vacates the public ROW).?ÿ
Some states allow an offer to expire by non use, but others don't, and the only way to recind an offer in those states is by the established public vacation process. This makes sense because it is nearly impossible to prove that no one has ever used a ROW.?ÿ
I wouldn't be surprised if it works the way you say in MN, but surveyors tend to extrapolate the way things work in their areas of experience to the rest of the world (or at least country), but there is a reason that licenses are limited to one political subdivision.
