Vacating the road will create an ownership to the centerline of a dedicated subdivision road for each adjacent lot. That is SOP for every state I've researched, possibly the OP is in a state where that doesn't hold true, but I'm skeptical.
That is true in existing subdivisions, however, it was stated that the subdivision was extinguished with all of the platted 12 lots being combined back into one.
I think there are three owners inside the original subdivision. By selling the two lots metes and bounds it does confuse the issue. But if those two owners own the original lots I do believe they will retain reversionary rights to the centerline.
"Vacating the road will create an ownership to the centerline of a dedicated subdivision road for each adjacent lot."
That is my expectation as well. However, I wonder how the metes and bounds described lots refer to any line running along the platted right of way (if they do) and if the specific language of the metes and bounds description might negate any reversion.
Maybe I'm not understanding you clearly, but, as I understand what you envision, there is a ROW running from existing road to existing road. The ROW has six platted lots on each side of it.
If I'm correct in how I describe what you are thinking, my point is that those six lots no longer exist as the subdivision has been extinguished and all lots consolidated. When that happened, all reversion rights were extinguished with the subdivision.
The only remaining question revolves around the validity of the dedicated ROW. If the dedication was not formally accepted, it does not exist. If it was formally accepted, it has to be formally abandoned to extinguish it, and, when that happens, the entire ROW area reverts back to the parent tract because the lots formerly fronting it no longer exist.
In that scenario, if the two sold lots do front on the ROW, I'd have to agree that you are correct, however, the other lots in the subdivision no longer exist so the issue goes away. One of three things can have a major impact. If the ROW was never formally accepted by the entity it was dedicated to, it does not exist. If it was accepted by the entity but the entity doesn't abandon it formally, it remains in place and none of the three owners get anything, however, if it was accepted and formerly abandoned, your assertion holds true if the two sold lots front the ROW.
If the two meets and bounds lots run to the ROW, it all comes down to whether the ROW was formally accepted or not. If it was never accepted, it doesn't exist. If it was accepted and is vacated, those two lots would have reversion rights to the centerline but, it was accepted and the entity to which it was dedicated decides not to abandon it, nobody gets anything, and, if the ROW runs through the middle of the parent tract and is not abandoned, the parent tract becomes two distinct lots by the presence of the ROW.
That complicates it, if it were described by lots there would be no question. I've never seen this scenario, it's very unusual. The courts really protect reversionary rights. The lots to the opposite side will not have reversionary rights to the land past the centerline, that much I do know (at least where I am). My guess would be if it went to court it would pass to the metes and bounds parcel since it occupies the lot location. It would be a great research topic.
In New Jersey:
“Notwithstanding nonacceptance, the power of acceptance remains with the public authorities until such time as they reject or vacate the dedicated land by official municipal legislative .” Highway Holding Co. v. Yara Engineering Corp., 123 A. 2d 511 - NJ: Supreme Court 1956
Once the dedication has taken place the dedicator can not revoke it. The municipality can accept the dedication by ordinance or by use by the public, generally for 20 years, or vacate the dedication by ordinance. Until one of these things are done by the municipality the dedication remains.
I am in NJ and worked in Municipal Engineering for 16 years.
“Notwithstanding nonacceptance, the power of acceptance remains with the public authorities until such time as they reject or vacate the dedicated land by official municipal legislative .”
If the dedication is not formally accepted and memorialized by resolution, that would be deemed to be non acceptance.
It doesn't make sense that a lack of resolution equates nonacceptance. There will always be a time period between dedication and formal acceptance via resolution. Thus there would need to be some overt action to constitute nonacceptance. This also makes sense that the court allowed for the power of acceptance to remain. The idea that it would be instantly extinguished because of a lack of resolution just doesn't make sense. Some overt act of nonacceptance would be necessary.
In NJ, there has to be both an offer and an acceptance. The offer exists for the mere fact that the ROW exists on a plan that is part of an Application to a local or county (sometimes both) Planning or zoning board. The planning or zoning boards (if variances are required) can only grant approvals based on existing land use/land development and zoning ordinances.
Neither Board has the legislative authority vested in them to accept anything offered to the town or county as they are not elected officials, they are appointed volunteer laymen. The town assumes financial liability and maintenance costs within the lines of the easement.
Typically, when a plan is approved, the improvements are bonded and the applicant is required to construct the improvements, in this case, clearing the ROW, cutting in the road and building whatever type of surface that is required by ordinance. These things are bonded for the express purpose that is the applicant does not complete the improvements, the town or county can call the bond and have those items constructed at no cost to the tax payers.
Not a single construction permit would be allowed for any of the lots fronting the proposed ROW if the road within the ROW was not built to at least the subbase level to assure emergency access and construction traffic. Acceptance of the ROW is not granted until the road (any other improvements) is completed and the town or county engineer certifies that the improvements were constructed in accordance with town or county standards. When the performance bond is released, the resolution of acceptance is memorialized through resolution after a two year maintenance bond is posted.
There is no way a resolution of acceptance would happen, absent an escrow account to the construction being negotiated with the funds deposited, based on the town or county's engineers estimate of costs.
Keep in mind, I am only speaking from a NJ perspective but, over my 42 years experience, it's always been the same and I have been licensed as both professional planner (I let that license lapse), PLS who worked in municipal engineering in many towns, for years, and a former member of my town's combined Planning and zoning boards.
I will qualify though, there can be exceptions to the timing of when the improvements are built through permit extensions that allow the applicant additional time to secure the funding, but again, no construction permits will be issued until the ROW improvements are substantially complete and no acceptance of the ROW until they are 100% complete, in accordance with the applicable standards. Not requiring the ROW to be built would essentially create land locked lots.
We just did a survey in “Tillman’s Addition. The subdivision was never recorded apparently. So every subsequent map acknowledged the subdivision as “Tillman’s Addition (Unrecorded)”. And all the deeds referred to lots being in “Tillman’s Addition (Unrecorded)”.
I walked away somewhat confused. How did lots get sold if it was never recorded. How did rights-of-way get dedicated if it was never recorded. And how did some r/w’s get vacated if it was never recorded.
Now the mention of “recorded, never conveyed” has me more confused.
It is not the recording of a subdivision plat in county records that gives the plat it's dignity in law. It is it's mere existence in the eyes of the parties to the transaction. A plat tacked up on the wall in a real estate office has all the dignity of one in a county recorders files.
Excepting in cases like Oregon where land use laws prohibit subdivision of land without first passing through a governing bodies land use review and meeting locally established requirements. Even then it isn't the recording, but the signing off by all the pertinent parties that counts. Here in Oregon those laws started coming into effect in the 1960's.
So the fact of a plat being unrecorded isn't all that unusual. I've got one in play here in my fair city. The original (unrecorded) plat started showing up in deed references in the 1920's. The original map is lost. We have a facsimile reproduction of its data in a map produced in 1947, and recorded about 2000.
There is a an Oregon Case, Hicklin v. McClear 19 Or 508, 24 P 992 (1890), in which an area was subdivided by the plat of "Brookland". Subsequently the plat was re recorded under the title "Brooklyn". And then, a few years later, the area was re-platted, again under the title "Brooklyn", with a whole new layout. Unbeknownst to certain parties already living on the property in reliance upon the older version.
We have an addition to the largest city in the county that is bizarre. The plat was all signed off in the 1800's. Several years later a major portion of the addition was officially vacated. Nevertheless, lots continued to be sold as if the vacation had never happened. The deeds read, "a tract formerly platted as Lot 5 of Block 18 in Apple Pie Addition to.......
