I have a client who has a gas & utility easement across his property. The easement was dedicated when by the plat when the subdivision was created. He has called all the oil and gas companies in the area and has obtained releases from all the utility companies he could.
The releases are great and all but I think a replat is the only way to remove the easement from the lot.
Thoughts?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
At the least, all releases need to be filed in the public record. To really squash it, I'd recommend recording each release and, after they're indexed, filing your new map with reference to the book and page of each release. Could be overkill but the idea is to kill it, right?
How does one prove there is not another and another and another potential firm floating out there who still have a right to that easement? That is the evil within the whole easement situation. Every landowner should avoid them like the plague.
My thoughts exactly. So would a replat get rid of the easement?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
If the easement was dedicated to the approving agency on the map, and accepted for public utilities purposes, the utilities have use of the easement under terms of their franchise agreement. The local agency can abandon the easement by resolution. At least in California.
arctan(x), post: 390423, member: 6795 wrote: My thoughts exactly. So would a replat get rid of the easement?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
A vacation of the plat, or a portion thereof will get rid of the easement, maybe. They're kind of like herpes and self-storage units...once you've got 'em, you can never seem to get rid of them.
A filed release from the owner of the dominant rights is plenty good down here. My home county here keeps tabs of things that have 'happened' (been recorded) within a filed plat and that list is also available right there with the plat. Easement vacations are common, but the governing municipality must also OK it, along with anybody or everybody that has a utility stake anywhere near it.
I guess someone is wanting a "picture" of the lot with no easement crossing. If nothing else, a misc. document showing the extent of the extinguished rights filed with the vacation might fit the bill.
We have a pipeline easement written in about 1910 that crossed a quarter section. That's all it tells you. The next quarter section to the east has the same easement as does the one to the west. Now there are about three modern subdivisions filling up that first quarter section. There is no written record of precisely where the pipeline may or may not have been installed. Quarter million dollar houses all over the place. Every last one has a title insurance policy that references the possibility of an existing pipeline crossing said little lot. Apparently, no one knows anything about it so the title companies mention it every time. The easement is conveniently not mentioned on any of the formal subdivision maps but the title companies all know about it.
My client owns Lot 2. The 25' wide G.U.E. has caused 3 different buyers to back out. The G.U.E. extends all the way to the south line of the subdivision across 11 more lots. The client has obtained a full release from the franchise gas company and is being recorded on Monday. Do you guys think that a vacation plat is needed or can I just note on my survey of the Lot that the easement has been released?
arctan(x), post: 390463, member: 6795 wrote: The client has obtained a full release from the franchise gas company
As someone else said, is that the only company that could have benefited from the easement?
It's not merely a gas line. It's also a utility easement that must have been needed to service the lots. Simply took advantage of an existing waste of space by giving it additional uses rather than placing a utility easement elsewhere in addition to the pipe line. Who has the long term liability associated with environmental issues that could arise from discovering a leak has occurred and is currently unknown?
Holy Cow, post: 390466, member: 50 wrote: It's not merely a gas line. It's also a utility easement that must have been needed to service the lots. Simply took advantage of an existing waste of space by giving it additional uses rather than placing a utility easement elsewhere in addition to the pipe line. Who has the long term liability associated with environmental issues that could arise from discovering a leak has occurred and is currently unknown?
I've verified in the field that no gas line exists in the easement on the subject tract.
The way to handle this varies by state. In Alaska an easement created by plat can only be removed by a replat approved by the platting authority.
This should involve the owners of all lots that are impacted by the easement as Lot 2 is between the others, the adjoiner to the top of the subdivision, as well as the various committees/boards/whatever within the platting authority. If this easement has never been used in any way and everyone potentially affected agrees on it's elimination, then, and only then, should a replat be prepared and approved.
Holy Cow, post: 390527, member: 50 wrote: This should involve the owners of all lots that are impacted by the easement as Lot 2 is between the others, the adjoiner to the top of the subdivision, as well as the various committees/boards/whatever within the platting authority. If this easement has never been used in any way and everyone potentially affected agrees on it's elimination, then, and only then, should a replat be prepared and approved.
That's the way its supposed to work. The platting authority's job is to make sure there are no objections from any potentially effected neighbors, utilities or agencies.
Thanks for the thoughts on this one. I'll have a chat with my client tomorrow.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
Warren Smith, post: 390424, member: 9900 wrote: If the easement was dedicated to the approving agency on the map, and accepted for public utilities purposes, the utilities have use of the easement under terms of their franchise agreement. The local agency can abandon the easement by resolution. At least in California.
Warren has it right. If the easement is the result of the S/D plat and was accepted by the governing municipality, the easement belongs to the municipality. The gas company may not have a standing in this agreement. The municipality would need to abandon the easement. I have seen municipalities reserve easements for potential future use. IE: Sewer easement are reserved for a S/D on septic where a sewer line is proposed in the future.
