On a subdivision plat and then a re-subdivision plat of the same parcel, there is language within the dedication from the subdivider(owner) of the parcel that reads in short,
….and do hereby dedicate and set apart all of the street as shown on the accompanying plat to the use of the public forever…..
To me this was a transfer to the public as a public road. The road ROW is not owned by the subdivider now. Correct?
And once the plat was accepted, including the re-subdivision, the county accepted the ROW as a public road.
Now 10 years later there is a vacation plat of the subdivision by the same original owner with language in the dedication that reads in part,
…to be vacated and that those easements, street or other public ways remaining as shown on the accompanying survey plat do hereby remain as easements, street or other public ways for those uses as identified.
The vacation plat only vacated some lots and more or less consolidated them into one parcel with the exception of 1 lot.
The parcel sold and has been owned by the current owner for the last 10 yrs. They are selling. The metes and bounds description of their deed includes the street ROW and doesn’t have EXCEPTING THEREFROM……. in the deed for the street. All 3 plats would make you believe they own the street ROW by the line weights. I say the description is incorrect.
What do you guys think?
Probably the exterior is correct. Plats alone do not transfer title so the underlying land is still held in fee by others than the public, Plats can dedicate ROW's to the public, today the local governing body needs to accept it, they don't want more road to maintain. Words I would use in the description is, Subject to the road easements as dedicated on Plat # zzzz.
jud
Around here it requires a town meeting vote to accept a private way as a public way.
The plat will state an intention but unless there are further documents, i.e. takings etc, then it simply states an intention.
> All 3 plats would make you believe they own the street ROW by the line weights. I say the description is incorrect.
> What do you guys think?
Well we know the property in question used to own the area now dedicated for public roadway as evident by the deed and plats. We also know the dedication for public road purposes created the road etc and to date it still exists. The PIQ does still have the rights of reversion to the road area previously dedicated but the road must be vacated through the proper road vacations procedures.
Was the PIQ included in the plat? Once platted the easiest legal is for Lot x of Plat....for later transactions... but occasionally the original legals remain. Is the legal incorrect? No, not IMHO because Im guessing it can still be used to convey titled interest in the subject property that can be layed out and defined on the ground by a prudent surveyor. The limits of said subject property is subject to the later dedications and platting events but a prudent surveyor can lay that out as you have mentioned as well.
Check your state laws regarding public property. Did the local municipality sign off on the plat? If not, it's most likely not a public road as there has been no form of official acceptance.
Yes, the property in question is included in the plats.
What I'm trying to settle with myself is the term "dedicate and set apart".
"Dedicate" meaning giving to, "set apart" meaning divide from. If the "set apart" was not included, I'd be more inclined to believe it remains in ownership to original owner a little easier.
In my world merely showing it on a plat with dedication language is not sufficient. It takes a deed conveying the property and acceptance of the deed by the public entity. Absent that the property would probably still be owned by whoever was trying to dedicate it.
Colo Rev Statutes
31-23-107. Public property dedicated
All streets, parks, and other places designated or described as for public use on the map or plat of any city or town or of any addition made to such city or town are public property and the fee title thereto vested in such city or town.
The Title Company says title transfered at acceptance and recording of the plat. No deed was needed.
So, ownership of my street I'm dealing with belongs to the town and not the property owner. It shouldn't be included in the metes and bounds description.
> Colo Rev Statutes
> 31-23-107. Public property dedicated
> All streets, parks, and other places designated or described as for public use on the map or plat of any city or town or of any addition made to such city or town are public property and the fee title thereto vested in such city or town.
>
> The Title Company says title transfered at acceptance and recording of the plat. No deed was needed.
>
> So, ownership of my street I'm dealing with belongs to the town and not the property owner. It shouldn't be included in the metes and bounds description.
I'd say that if the town signed the acceptance block on the plat, they accepted the dedication and the subdivider no longer owns the street. What is the town's position? (not that they usually know what their position is) :-/
Agree that the acceptance of the plat dedicating the streets, etc. to the public use removes them from ownership by the one creating the plat. Normally, the public entity would gladly vacate everything upon request.
The owner made the dedication on the plat. Did the public body (city, town, county..) accept the dedication? You can dedicate but it must be accepted.
When the owner makes the dedication, it does give the intent to give the Right-of-Way to the Governing body. Although it is not truly accepted until the improvements are made and an official motion is made and passed by that Governing body.