A clients deed calls for two 75' wide lots plus a 30' wide street that was never constructed, for the depth of her property based shown upon a 1920's subdivision map. Adjacent neighbors property has three 75' wide lots. We found monuments on the far side of the two properties. The distance between the monuments has an excess compared to the call requiring prorating the lots.
I am wondering if the old 30' street should be included in the prorating. In my case the common line between the adjacent owner will not change much if I use it or not. I more interested if it should be or not. There are no signs of possession between the two properties.
Never pro-rate streets.
Constructed or not, excess or deficiency.
Always full width.
And in the case of abandoned - full width, pro-ration, and then split the street between adjoiners.
toivo1037, post: 333225, member: 973 wrote: And in the case of abandoned - full width, pro-ration, and then split the street between adjoiners.
I don't quite follow that.
I would treat the centerline as a lot line for the proration, then apply a full width road.
A picture or sketch would help see the configuration, but I agree: hold the street width. Also be aware that even if there is no physical street there, it has to have gone through an abandonment process to be abandoned. It still exists even if there is not a physical roadway.
Lamon Miller, post: 333219, member: 553 wrote: A clients deed calls for two 75' wide lots plus a 30' wide street that was never constructed, for the depth of her property based shown upon a 1920's subdivision map. Adjacent neighbors property has three 75' wide lots. We found monuments on the far side of the two properties. The distance between the monuments has an excess compared to the call requiring prorating the lots.
I am wondering if the old 30' street should be included in the prorating. In my case the common line between the adjacent owner will not change much if I use it or not. I more interested if it should be or not. There are no signs of possession between the two properties.
If the street was created concurrently with the lots then everything in the subdivision, streets, alleys, lots, tracts, et al. are prorated.
If the right of way exists as an easement, prorate from the underlying lot line, and assign the appropriate width of easement.
Didn't we just see an example of this at a quarter section line recently?
Warren Smith, post: 333234, member: 9900 wrote: If the right of way exists as an easement, prorate from the underlying lot line, and assign the appropriate width of easement.
Didn't we just see an example of this at a quarter section line recently?
Well put.
vern, post: 333228, member: 3436 wrote: I don't quite follow that.
I would treat the centerline as a lot line for the proration, then apply a full width road.
Mathematically that only works if you are talking full blocks. IF it is a mix of lots and streets, I think the only way to do it is to subtract out the full street widths, do your proration and then insert the full street widths back where they are supposed to be placed.
What I was trying to say in the case of abandoned. Prorate as normal, excess or deficiency in the lots, full width to the street, then if abandoned, statute (normally to centerline) to adjacent neighbors.
Jim in AZ, post: 333230, member: 249 wrote: If the street was created concurrently with the lots then everything in the subdivision, streets, alleys, lots, tracts, et al. are prorated.
Not in this state. Government always gets full width, no matter the excess or deficiency.
You guys sure know how to make a simple concept difficult. In this case the land owner acquired the full width of the street. Common land owner owned both sides of street when abandoned many years ago and began selling off tracts including street.
The question "if a subdivision street is abandoned and now in full private ownership get its full width or does it get a prorated distance for surveying purposes."
toivo1037, post: 333239, member: 973 wrote: Mathematically that only works if you are talking full blocks. IF it is a mix of lots and streets, I think the only way to do it is to subtract out the full street widths, do your proration and then insert the full street widths back where they are supposed to be placed.
What I was trying to say in the case of abandoned. Prorate as normal, excess or deficiency in the lots, full width to the street, then if abandoned, statute (normally to centerline) to adjacent neighbors.
Not in this state. Government always gets full width, no matter the excess or deficiency.
I agree the public always get what is called for, and if it was built widen than it should be they get the extra as well. At least in Texas,
Lamon Miller, post: 333241, member: 553 wrote: You guys sure know how to make a simple concept difficult.
The question "if a subdivision street is abandoned and now in full private ownership get its full width or does it get a prorated distance for surveying purposes."
Ownership does not matter. Set the lot and/or street corners accordingly.
toivo1037, post: 333239, member: 973 wrote: ...Not in this state. Government always gets full width, no matter the excess or deficiency.
Mr. T,
That interests me for a few reasons. In Oklahoma there have been cases where both sides of this have prevailed. Is there a State Statute that specifies such? I have spoken on seminars about the subject and would like to see how your State has handled such a situation. :good:
Lamon Miller, post: 333241, member: 553 wrote: You guys sure know how to make a simple concept difficult. In this case the land owner acquired the full width of the street. Common land owner owned both sides of street when abandoned many years ago and began selling off tracts including street.
The question "if a subdivision street is abandoned and now in full private ownership get its full width or does it get a prorated distance for surveying purposes."
If it is no longer a right-of-way, we are not discussing the merits of prorating a right-of-way are we?
vern, post: 333246, member: 3436 wrote: If it is no longer a right-of-way, we are not discussing the merits of prorating a right-of-way are we?
He never said that it was abandoned... so I presume we are discussing a platted street in a subdivision as he stated.
toivo1037, post: 333239, member: 973 wrote: Mathematically that only works if you are talking full blocks. IF it is a mix of lots and streets, I think the only way to do it is to subtract out the full street widths, do your proration and then insert the full street widths back where they are supposed to be placed.
What I was trying to say in the case of abandoned. Prorate as normal, excess or deficiency in the lots, full width to the street, then if abandoned, statute (normally to centerline) to adjacent neighbors.
Not in this state. Government always gets full width, no matter the excess or deficiency.
"Not in this state. Government always gets full width, no matter the excess or deficiency."
Why? Aren't all the parcels in a subdivision created simultaneously? If so a street dous not have seniority and should be prorated as all the other parcels are. It doesn't matter if it has been abandoned or not.
Jim in AZ, post: 333249, member: 249 wrote: "Not in this state. Government always gets full width, no matter the excess or deficiency."
Why? Aren't all the parcels in a subdivision created simultaneously? If so a street dous not have seniority and should be prorated as all the other parcels are. It doesn't matter if it has been abandoned or not.
I believe that is the root question here. Apparently in some states the original corners set at the creation of a parcel will yield to the distances stated on the plat and therefor should be ignored. I had no idea this was procedural in some states. I'd hate to take the test in those states!
Lamon Miller, post: 333241, member: 553 wrote: You guys sure know how to make a simple concept difficult. In this case the land owner acquired the full width of the street. Common land owner owned both sides of street when abandoned many years ago and began selling off tracts including street.
The question "if a subdivision street is abandoned and now in full private ownership get its full width or does it get a prorated distance for surveying purposes."
I'm not sure it is us making this difficult. If no one completely understands your question, do you suppose the you might be at least partially culpable?
I would hold the street width (abandoned or not), and prorate to the centerline of the street in most cases. If the sidelines are skewed (not perpendicular to the centerline), or other special cases, that might make a difference.
Lamon Miller, post: 333241, member: 553 wrote: You guys sure know how to make a simple concept difficult. In this case the land owner acquired the full width of the street. Common land owner owned both sides of street when abandoned many years ago and began selling off tracts including street.
The question "if a subdivision street is abandoned and now in full private ownership get its full width or does it get a prorated distance for surveying purposes."
Assuming there is no remaining evidence of the original street location then it gets it's full width, however, if there is evidence (doesn't have to be original monuments) then retracement procedures apply. Of course if you are staking the centerline, then it will end up at the same point.
Lamon Miller, post: 333241, member: 553 wrote: You guys sure know how to make a simple concept difficult. In this case the land owner acquired the full width of the street. Common land owner owned both sides of street when abandoned many years ago and began selling off tracts including street.
The question "if a subdivision street is abandoned and now in full private ownership get its full width or does it get a prorated distance for surveying purposes."
If the street was abandoned, why is it even a consideration now? If it no longer exists, it no longer exists.
Reading in Brown, the principle appears to be not so much that streets get their full width, but rather that excess/deficiency is distributed among the lots and blocks. It's on page 381 et seq in my 6th Edition of Boundary Control.... Brown (& Robillard) reference little case law originating the principal.
Skelton (å¤219) discusses the matter but offers little case law in support. Skelton, & Brown both cite the Utah case of Coop v. George E. Lowe. It seems it matters whether the road is actually constructed or just on paper. Apparently the principle of giving streets full width is an ancient one, as are exceptions to the rule.
