Don Blameuser, post: 451657, member: 30 wrote: I think that language is just a title company covering their butt.
Don
Maybe I misunderstood. Thought that was a statement in the deeds of each out-lot. Maybe not.
Interesting article on the subject. Might be a repeat. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/07/542076983/wealthy-san-francisco-neighborhood-fails-to-pay-taxes-loses-private-street
"Another Bureaucracy defining moment in history."
JPH, post: 451665, member: 6636 wrote: Maybe I misunderstood. Thought that was a statement in the deeds of each out-lot. Maybe not.
The language doesn't specifically except the areas under the streets, but is in the form of a suggestion that they be conveyed by QCDs. There is no language reserving the area within the streets to a particular party, and the suggestion of using QCD as the conveyance instrument suggests that whoever inserted the statement wasn't sure who held the fee title. Since the statement is vague and not a clear exception, it essentially has no effect other than someone involved in a conveyance along the way - probably a title company, but maybe a somewhat inexperienced attorney - thought that it was the best way to put all the parties on notice that they (title company or attorney) were not entirely clear on the fee title.
California Law has been pretty clear and consistent that the presumption that the underlying fee of roadways is with the adjacent parcels, unless the contrary can be conclusively shown. In a case like this subdivision, if the RWs were provided specific lot designations, that would be an indication that perhaps there may have been an intent to reserve the fee for the subdivider/grantor or to provide for some form of joint ownership among the several lot owners. But that alone would not be conclusive.
If there were a statement on the face of the map regarding fee ownership having been intended to be other than with the adjacent lots, or if the original lot conveyance deeds contained a reservation or statement regarding joint ownership of common areas, that would be sufficient to overcome the presumption. Short of that, the presumption of fee title attached to adjacent lots stands.
Dave Karoly, post: 451661, member: 94 wrote: "Where a street or other way is called for as a boundary in a conveyance of land, and the grantor owns the fee in the land represented as the way or street, an easement in such a way passes to the grantee by implication of law. 1 In such a case, it is immaterial that the way to which reference is made does not exist as such at the time of the transfer. 2" 25 Am Jur 2d Easements and Licenses ?? 20. Upon conveyance of land bound by way or street.
West's key number is 141 Easements key 17(1) to (4) for the above section.
Implied easements in general are under 141 Easements key 15.1If your Law Library has a Westlaw subscription you can get a list of Headnotes for California under those key numbers, read through those and see if any of the cases involve private streets shown on a map.
Thank you. I'll have to check to see if I have access to Westlaw.