I would like to gather some opinions on a situation I am dealing with in the state of Minnesota.
I am working in an old subdivision plat (1870)?ÿthat included the entire NE 1/4 of Section 12. At the time the plat was created the original owners of the plat also owned the NW 1/4 of Section 7 in the next township to the east.
The plat included a north-south street along the east side of the plat that was never improved upon and is now vacated. The east line of the street was the east line of the plat, which was the east line of the NE 1/4 of Section 12. My understanding is that the owners of the lots within the 1870 plat west of the vacated street would get the full width of the street since the lands east of the street were not a part of the subdivision, even though they were owned by the same parties at the time the plat was created.
What would your opinion on this be? I haven't been able to find any case law on this and would like to hear some other opinions.
?ÿ
Thank You
Had the land to the East been subdivided and occupied under the common ownership those lots fronting said road would have had rights to use it, but it would never revert back to them. Without lots being sold on the West side of the road and the road never being opened that land reverts to those on the West.
Since it follows accepted reversion practices, you would only find case law to the exception (most likely against it)?ÿif had been attempted.
Paul in PA
Thanks Paul,
That is what I thought, but just wanted another opinion on the matter.
This is a really good question, I would love to see some case law for it.
It seems that I've seen this as a test question or somehow ran across a similar question as a hypothetical. Since I believe you are saying that the street was created with the plat, IMHO?ÿwhen the street was officially vacated it would go completely to lots to the west. I believe this would still be the case whether there was a section line dividing these properties or not.
The safe answer is yeah it reverts in whole to owners in 12.?ÿ But, there may be other things going on that can complicate matters.?ÿ Here's an interesting one:
?ÿ
I agree this is a pretty typical issue and the whole goes to the owners within section 12.?ÿ The issue I have is I don't think we as land surveyors are the ones that should be insuring ownership.?ÿ That is the title company's job.?ÿ Their little note on the title report that says "LOT X and that portion of vacated r/w as inured by law" does not cut it with me.?ÿ Until they are willing to to include title insurance based a full description of the property such as, "LOT X together with that portion of vacated r/w described as follows......" I'm not making a statement of fact to the ownership.?ÿ Now how you get a title company to do that is the next question.?ÿ Great topic. Thanks, Jp
I agree this is a pretty typical issue and the whole goes to the owners within section 12.?ÿ The issue I have is I don't think we as land surveyors are the ones that should be insuring ownership.?ÿ That is the title company's job.?ÿ Their little note on the title report that says "LOT X and that portion of vacated r/w as inured by law" does not cut it with me.?ÿ Until they are willing to to include title insurance based a full description of the property such as, "LOT X together with that portion of vacated r/w described as follows......" I'm not making a statement of fact to the ownership.?ÿ Now how you get a title company to do that is the next question.?ÿ Great topic. Thanks, Jp
I understand your hesitation, but I think we need to step up as a profession and make calls like this. We are really the only ones who know the law. You can't insure title, but you can, and should, give your opinion on where your clients boundary is. We can't let the rare out of whack decision scare us from doing jobs.
Until they are willing to to include title insurance based a full description of the property such as....
To quote Don Wilson "Title is what, survey is where". ?ÿThat portion vacated under law is the what, the description is the the where. ?ÿWe don't insure title, title insurers don't describe the limits and location of property.?ÿ
Just recalled something unique in MN (I think) called cartways.?ÿ Unopened paper streets are basically cartways.?ÿ Sometimes vacations are prohibited.?ÿ Do a search on google scholar with that keyword and you'll find some MN cases I bet.?ÿ Also look at MN statutes.
There is a consensus locally with surveyors that the street will go to the lot owners, not to the undeveloped lands across the street. Even if the owner of the undeveloped lands is also the developer of the subdivision. I have not seen a case that addressed this issue, there are a few vacated streets that I know of?ÿwith that situation. Title insurance?ÿdoesn't?ÿhave any say?ÿwhere I will determine the boundary location. However, they sure don't like vacated streets going to the Lot owners despite all the case law and statutes that explain how it works. The supremes even?ÿruled that regardless of what the deed says the lots expand to their reversionary limits automatically and the deed doesn't have to mention the vacated street. Despite that title insurance will not cover the vacated street!!! I ignore their position with the exception I will talk to the client and advise them that they can mention the vacated street?ÿin the deed if the attorney signs off on doing that.
I have the same "discussions" with them JP must be having. Frankly it's weird.
Until they are willing to to include title insurance based a full description of the property such as....
To quote Don Wilson "Title is what, survey is where". ?ÿThat portion vacated under law is the what, the description is the the where. ?ÿWe don't insure title, title insurers don't describe the limits and location of property.?ÿ
Yep, and I will be happy to give them my description of the "where" for them to place in the title report to which I then survey and map on the ground based on that specific preliminary title report.?ÿ If they wont do their part I will not do my part.?ÿ There are many variables in real property rights and we are just one part of the equation.?ÿ For some reason we are thought of as the "fixers" which I like, but it does have its limits and we do need to push those responsibilities to those that should be responsible......kind of like what the attorneys try do to us with certifications.?ÿ Great subject!?ÿ My 2 cents, Jp
I agree this is a pretty typical issue and the whole goes to the owners within section 12.?ÿ The issue I have is I don't think we as land surveyors are the ones that should be insuring ownership.?ÿ That is the title company's job.?ÿ Their little note on the title report that says "LOT X and that portion of vacated r/w as inured by law" does not cut it with me.?ÿ Until they are willing to to include title insurance based a full description of the property such as, "LOT X together with that portion of vacated r/w described as follows......" I'm not making a statement of fact to the ownership.?ÿ Now how you get a title company to do that is the next question.?ÿ Great topic. Thanks, Jp
I agree. That's what Title CO's are for. Stick with surveying, stay away from the risk and liability, let them take it on. That is their job.
Right, I guess the practical question is how to show it on the plat.?ÿ End the area, bearing, distance at the middle of the vacation (to cover your ass worst case happens) or at the section line (which is generally where it should be as far as we know).?ÿ I would go to the section line, but use some sort of note (maybe suggesting title insurance for that area, or stating the policy is not covering that area).?ÿ I want to show it per deed and chain of title, but not be the one on the line for legal title/rights in it.