Something new (to me) popped up that I'm curious if anyone else has seen before.?ÿ A pair of streets intersect in a typical 90, street A and street B.?ÿ Street A was vacated in the 50s.?ÿ Street B was widened by 5 feet via fee acquisition on one side in the 90s.?ÿ The instrument for the acquisition of the 5 foot strip excepts out the portion of the strip that passes through the vacated street A.
I'm wondering why it was done that way.?ÿ Is there some rule that says the government can't reacquire property it once had or something?
The person who wrote the widening description didn't know about the vacation?
The person who wrote the widening description didn't know about the vacation?
I suppose that's possible but it seems like a such a huge error (the vacation was recorded not once but twice) that I didn't even think of that.
Perhaps the vacated strip was in use and not worth fighting for?
If this is Idaho, there are some strange quirks to vacation..
Assuming, here, that the vacated street had reverted to the land owners on either side of the street. While acquiring the additional 5-feet along the lot line, they should have specified an additional 5-feet along the half street (on both sides of the street). Perhaps the standard in that area is to refer to Lot X as now being the original Lot X and the portion of half-street added to it. Sounds silly to me, but possible.
I re-read the exception and it specifically excepts out the vacated street, so it appears it wasn't a mistake. There is a driveway in this space now but I don't think that matters as there are 3 other driveways elsewhere in the 5 foot strip that weren't excepted out; all accessing the same parcel with the same ownership. But yes, this is here in Idaho. I ran it by a couple others in my office and they hadn't seen anything like it before and thought it was odd too.
Question: In Idaho, specifically, who technically becomes the owner of a vacated street?
In this case the vacation document specified half went to each adjoiner.
@holy-cow by law ownership shouldn't change. The public gets an easement which goes away on vacation. Too many goofy judgments and legislative fixes have made that unclear...
That's a strange one. If the new widened ROW runs E-W then there is 5' bump into the new ROW.
So say the north 5' of the west 30' of Lot 1 and the north 5' of the east 30' of Lot 10 is excepted.
That exception must reference the lots.
If it only references the vacated street I don't think it's valid.
That street is gone, as long as they combine the Lots and the vacation it's probably OK but the vacated street isn't relevant, only the Lots.
We have plenty of surveys that treat a portion of a vacated street or alley no differently than a lot.
That's a strange one. If the new widened ROW runs E-W then there is 5' bump into the new ROW.
The widened runs NS, but yeah, a 5 foot bump is what I'm planning to show. The exception references the lots as well, yes.
