Here is the scenario. In 1965 a new route for a US highway was run across a small incorporated city near the east edge of the city limits. Deeds were issued for this route to the State so it isn't merely a right-of-way but actually State property. To simplify, let's say the highway centerline runs straight and the right-of-way (east line of property deeded) is a consistent distance from that centerline. Today, a fellow owns all of the remainder of the lots and blocks between the right-of-way line and the east city limit (a big triangle). He is asking the City to vacate all of the streets and alleys adjoining his deeded lots.
The question: As the State was deeded partial lots, and this fellow owns the remainder of those lots, does the State gain a claim to portions of the newly vacated streets and alleys? Or does everything go to the owner of the non-highway lots? In the standard scenario of two owners adjoining a newly vacated street, they would each gain their half of the street. Does this also apply in this case?
That's a good question, wish I had an answer.
"By the book" I would assume that the State Property (fee simple) would have all of the rights any other estate might in a given situation.
BUT...I've seen the contrary more than a few times. Where the vacated R/W on the "private" side of the Highway boundary went to the private owners and the Highway "Right-of-Way" Line remained unchanged.
I'm gonna hafta look at some reference material for that one..:-|
The first thing that came to my mind is, how can the City vacate a fee R/W that is the property of the State?
Is the property owner asking for a setback variance vs. a R/W vacation?
I would think any vacation would revert to the origonal properties that the R/W was acquired from.
Clarification
The streets and alleys to be vacated appear on the original town plat. The highway property merely cuts through them at an angle. All but one of the streets look like cattle pasture. In fact the R-O-W fence runs straight, not following the zigs and zags of the actual State property, and is used as a pasture fence by the single adjoining landowner, my client. In his mind, he owns a triangle of land between the aliquot line and the highway fence, except that, technically, the unused streets and alleys that show up on the original town plat have not been vacated. I'm sure he is unaware of the zigs and zags.
Clarification
Sounds like you're going to have to educate the client about where the State property ends and his begins (the zag-zags). The platted r/w is apparently still public (as opposed to the State R/W), but undeveloped and occupied only by bovineal interests.
Is someone proposing the vacation of the platted streets?
Clarification
OK, I reread the OP and see what I misinterpreted.
Was the State deeded the entire R/W, even the areas that were the original streets and alleys, or were they acquired by some other process?
In my opinion, the State owns what was deeded to it, so the streets and alleys would be vacated to the original lots along their Centerlines, minus those portions deeded to the State, excepting any stipulations within the deeds that may state the contrary, i.e reversionary clauses and the like.
Clarification
Yes. Original streets to be vacated. The client's assumption is that every inch vacated will then be his property. I'm not so certain about that.
Clarification
Yeah, I wouldn't be too certain either.
In a perfect world one could find someone in the RW Dept. that had half a brain and could get involved and maybe help 'rectify' the occupation/description of the properties...but this ain't a perfect world.
Good luck?
Check your state statutes, Colorado has specific statutes governing such things. For example, (and I am trying to figure out what it means exactly) 43-2-302(e)"No portion of a roadway upon vacation shall accrue to an abutting roadway"
Clarification
You raise a good question about the area viewed as State R-O-W. They acquired certain lots and fractions of lots from the owners in 1965. The City had purchased some of the lots previously, then deeded those to the State as well. There is no record in the county courthouse indicating that the City vacated those portions of the streets and alleys falling between the east side and the west side of the State highway lands. I view this as a separate issue to my immediate concern, but, one that the City should formalize nevertheless.
The County Appraiser somehow decided that all of the streets and alleys in the triangular area my client views as being his should be treated as if vacated so have included all that extra area into his annual property tax invoice. This despite the fact they have not actually been vacated.
The 1965 highway plans contain all sorts of interesting questions. For one, they show their east line taking off from a corner of a tract they purchased to a corner of a different tract on the other side of suchandsuch street. The bearing of the line being dependent on the relative location of the two lots. This forms odd triangular endings to the streets that have not been vacated. In another case, they head straight east from a lot corner to the east side of the aliquot then north along the aliquot/city limit line, thus ignoring street and alley implictions.
I LOVE MY JOB. I LOVE MY JOB. I LOVE MY JOB. I LOVE MY JOB.
I think I understand what they think they said, but, I'm not sure I understand what they understood.:-D
Clarification
"The County Appraiser somehow decided that all of the streets and alleys in the triangular area my client views as being his should be treated as if vacated so have included all that extra area into his annual property tax invoice. This despite the fact they have not actually been vacated."
[sarcasm]Oh, the County Appraiser said so, don't they trump everything?[/sarcasm]
I take the position that your client owns it. Because the intent was 1.) vacate old R/W, 2.) possess new. That is the end of it.
Nate
Since the clear intent of the State Hwy Dept was to acquire land in the configuration of their mapped RW, and not to purchase any lots or portions of lots for use as intended or contemplated when the subdivision plat was made, I would think that the vacated streets get apportioned among the remaining lot owners and that none of it gets apportioned to the State RW.
But I'm more than willing to acknowledge the contrary if there is specific case law on point, or if someone has a particularly good view point in favor of apportioning to the State.
I'm not sure there is a correct answer to this question unless there is some good case law or state law that covers the situation. I have seen this a number of times, where a public area was vacated and County mapping attaches it to a tax lot as they think it should be attached with the typical disclaimers. Few years later a surveyor is called to survey the property in question. The title report gives the description of the property plus "that area of vacated road as prescribed by law." In this case, the law may be silent. The surveyor in my mind makes some big assumptions and monuments the lines including the area that is vacated then sometimes writes a new description of the new outside boundary. If he is lucky, everyone agrees and for all practical purposes the issue is done and doesn’t ever raise its head again. Is that our job? How much are we hanging out there if someone sees it differently? Especially in a high dollar area. Who else would answer the question of how the vacated area is distributed except a surveyor and then the court after the surveyor hung his ass out there? This is exactly why I don't there is enough money in surveying. I don't mind hanging my butt out there if there is enough money in the coffer to bandage it after it gets kicked. My 2 cents Jp
