Hi all and Happy Thanksgiving.
I am working on a project that involves surveying two lots of an old plat from the 1800s. The lots are on the west side of a 50 foot wide north-south Street. The lots on the east side of the Street were condemned by eminent domain in 1953 for State Highway Purposes (State of Minnesota). The west right-of-way of the State Highway is now the east side of the 50 foot north-south Street and the highway ditch encompasses all of the lots that were condemned. For reference the property is on a steep east facing slope with the 50 foot wide north-south Street being approximately 20 feet above the pavement of the traveled highway.
The condemnation document reads that the State owns an Easement over the lots on the east side of the Street. There have been no transfers on said lots since 1953 and the fee title owner at that time, which was a different owner than the owner of the lots I am surveying in 1953, is long gone by now. So even though the State technically only holds an easement over the lots east of the 50 foot north-south Street, everyone is treating the property as if they own the land in fee title and no one is claiming title to these lots besides the State.
Fast forward to the 1990s. The City vacated the 50 foot north-south Street in front of the property I am surveying, because there was a well located within the street and there was alternate access to the State Highway for adjacent owners.
In your opinion would the owner of the lots on the west side of the vacated Street have reversion rights across the entire 50 foot street or would he/she receive 25 feet with the State also receiving 25 feet? Can reversion rights apply to land that is held in easement only?
The lots on the west side get 25'. The State's easement gets nothing because an easement is an interest in land, not title. The heirs of the owner of the east side lots gets the other 25'. If the owners have been using the east 25' of the street since the 1990s or before the the west owners may have it by claim of right adverse possession but that depends on your state law.
It seems strange to me that the state would have taken the entire property by means of eminent domain and not acquired fee title.
This seems to be common for the State of MN in those years. They would condemn the land for highway use, but only obtain an easement. Of course, over the years everyone has treated the right-of-way as if it were held in fee title.
?ÿ
Thanks for the replies
While that makes sense for a partial take, it just seems down right mean for a complete take. As for the past fee owner getting title to the vacated right-of-way, did the condemnation documents call for the lot and block? If so I would think that State gets a taste of the vacated street.
"The condemnation document reads that the State owns an Easement over the lots on the east side of the Street."
"The City vacated the 50 foot north-south Street in front of the property I am surveying"
I'm not sure that I have the layout of this correct (is there a highway adjoining a street or ??) but...
If there is an easement on a property and it is vacated, the underlying property simply goes back to it's "pre-easement" status - if it was an eastside lot before, then it's still an eastside lot now. No change in Fee Ownership.
I don't believe there will be any prescriptive use claim as the use was permitted under an easement so it was an allowed use - no prescriptive action.
Another thing to consider - if the rights being vacated were those acquired by or used by the State, then the State has an interest in those lands and a vacation by the City is unlikely to have done the job - the State still has rights that must be vacated before the title is clear.
Post a sketch if you can.
I think Dave Karoly has it right.
If the taking was only an easement, the state has no claim to any ownership and somebody still owns the east lots that the highway is using. AP for the half-street could start when the street easement was extinguished. If anyone needs clear title to the east 25 ft of the vacated street, they will have to find the heirs of the east side lots (good luck with that) go through court.
"AP for the half-street could start when the street easement was extinguished."
That's true ONLY if the State vacated their ownership rights (assuming that I'm understanding the situation - was the vacated easement State owned/controlled?). A City can't vacate an easement owned (completely or partially) by the State.
Assuming that the easement was properly and fully vacated, then you can start talking AP. Then, it's the entity asserting AP that has to make the case - the fee owner could/should assert ownership to force the issue. If the adjoiner want's to assert AP then the courts will decide if the fee owner keeps the full lot or loses half of the maintained roadway - in either case it'll clear up the title.
As I read it, the state never had any ownership or easement rights over the old city street. They only had an easement over the lots east of the street. The easement means somebody else still in theory owns the east lots, and therefore the reversion rights to half the city street.
Correct that the state never had any ownership or easement rights over the old city street.
I agree with Dave and Bill93, but wanted to get another view point to make sure I was thinking correctly. In theory some long lost heir still has claim to the east 25 feet. ?ÿThe east 25 feet?ÿin question is a steep side slope that is unusable for any purpose, so I doubt they would have any interest in it anyway.
Bottom line is after you make your determination it should be presented to the title company and they should agree to insure the original lots together with the portion of the vacated road that you determined attaches to those lots. We are not in the insurance business and should not survey that which will not be insured by the tile company in my opinion. My 2 cents. Jp
No we are not insurance companies, but we certainly should not allow title companies to dictate what we survey.
I agree, but when it comes to the title company adding the little line to their report stating " and that portion of vacated X street that would be inured by law" I think it is worth your time to work with the title co. to add that portion you determine should go with the parent parcel to the description. Unless it is cut and dry I am not going to extend my clients sideline to include a portion of the vacated road and set monuments unless title company is willing to insure it. Jp
