It appears that it's my fate to endlessly argue reversionary rights to title companies and regulators. I sent them Moorcroft vs Lang which is a supreme court case that considers the issue quite plainly (I think it does). I showed them the statute that covers the issue W.S 34-12-106. They universally look at me and actually say the case and statute don't say what they both clearly say.
Does anyone have a case that says,,,,,reversionary rights are activated at the time of vacation and continue with the transfer of the Lots.
That's what Moorcroft vs Lang says a number of times but I sense it isn't?ÿexplicit enough (for them).
Lambach vs Town of Mason is cited, so I have that one.....frankly I just don't know how to make it?ÿmore straightforward.
?ÿ
Moe, you can peruse this. If it doesn't help there are many references to other cases.?ÿ ? ?ÿ
https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/1978/479-pa-252-0.html
Thanks FL/GA !!
Maybe there was nothing to vacate?
Berman v. CHILDREN'S AID SOCY., 2014 NY Slip Op 51909 - NY: Supreme Court, Richmond 2014
Still on the beach... don??t care...
Still on the beach... don??t care...
you are missing all the fresh snow today
?ÿ
Am not.
Still on the beach... don??t care...
Lay off the Margaritas yer seein double.?ÿ ? ?ÿ
Some interesting items noticed during my reading of vacations:
"nor the title to the center of the street is an ownership separate from the ownership of the lots. It MAY not be detached and conveyed or leased as an?ÿinterest or estate separate and distinct from the lots." (bold mine) Moorcroft vs. Lang
Taking this to it's logical conclusion I can see why this is important. Lot 1 has reversionary rights, you sell the street separate from Lot 1 then sell Lot 1 and automatically the reversionary rights are again activated. So Lot 1 needs to go through a resubdivision process to separate it from the vacated street.
" it follows from the foregoing that the possibility of reverter passed by virtue of the deed describing the abutting lots, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the deed." Moorcroft vs Lang
I assume we all know this well, there is nothing to stop a person selling Lot 1 to add to the deed that it comes with reversionary rights to vacated streets, but that doesn't mean they aren't attached to Lot 1 when not mentioned. This seems to be the hang up with GIS and Title people. It's very frustrating, I even give them this decision and they don't see it.
In other readings, the city/county vacating streets are estopped from reserving easements, the decision to vacate belongs to the abutting lot owners, the city/county is not allowed to?ÿlease or convey any rights in the street.
I believe all these facts and?ÿrulings will be a shock to the city/county when I meet with them.
There have been some "interesting" acts taken by local officials that need to be cleaned up.
"There have been some "interesting" acts taken by local officials that need to be cleaned up."
I would substitute "interesting" with insane. I suppose that why the various Supreme Courts exist.?ÿ
"?ÿIt?ÿMAY?ÿnot be detached and conveyed or leased as an?ÿinterest or estate separate and distinct from the lots."
That really opens a can of worms, "MAY" should be replaced with "WILL".?ÿ
?
Here is a hodge-podge of Oregon cases. And a few from elsewhere that have been cited in Oregon cases. In google scholar court cases you can see where else they??ve been cited, so if the courts in?ÿwhatever state you are in have?ÿrelied any of these, perhaps that will help.
?ÿRegarding a deed for a lot and block also including the vacated street (without mentioning the vacated land in the deed), the case of Fahey v. City of Bend the court held:
??...it has been held in some jurisdictions that a conveyance made after the vacation of the street carries with it the street portion of the lot. We concur with this view. No distinction should be made between conveyances made before and conveyances made after the vacation of the adjoining street; in both cases the adjoining strip should be held to pass by the deed in the absence of the manifestation of a contrary intent.? Fahey v. City of bend, 252 Or. 267, 449 P. 2d 438, See 23 Am. Jur.
?ÿAnd, in McAdam v. Smith, the court held that:
??Where the description does not mention the street, river or other similar boundary but the deed describes the parcel so that, in fact, it is adjoining, the title to the bed passes the same as (if) mentioned (citing cases).? McAdam v. Smith, 221 Or 48, 350 P2d 689 (1960)
The court in the McAdam v. Smith case reasoned that title to the street should pass in order to ??prevent the existence of innumerable strips and gores of land, along the margins of streams and highways to which title, for generations, shall remain in obeyance, and then, upon the happening of some unexpected event, and one, consequently, not in express terms provided for in the title deeds, a bootless, almost objectless, litigation shall spring tip ??to vex and harass those, who in good faith had supposed themselves secure from such embarrassment.? (Buck v. Squires, 22 VT 484)
Reversion:
Upon a vacation of the street, the title reverts to the abutting owners free of the easement - Miller v. Roy W. Heinrich & Co., 257 Or. 155, 160 (Dec. 1970) (link)?ÿ(the document that discussed this case notes that "This is not technically a correct state-ment. The fact is, fee title never leaves the grantor or his grantees when a way is dedicated; therefore, how can it "revert" upon vacation? It is the easement to the public that reverts."
The fact that a public dedication just creates an easement and the underlying fee is owned by the dedicator?ÿ(or successors)?ÿis covered in this sampling -
?ÿ"It is a familiar principle of... law that a grant of land bordering on a road or river, carries title to the center of the river or road, unless the terms or circumstances of the grant indicate a limitation of its extent by the exterior lines."-Banks v. Ogden 69 U.S. 57 (1864)
?ÿ??While a highway exists there is nothing more than a mere suspension of the abutter??s right.? - A Treatise on the Law of Roads and Streets; Third Edition (1911) Byron L. and William F. Elliott
?ÿ??A dedication of a street, alley, road, etc. is not a grant, it is a right created in favor of the public, and is in the nature of an estoppel in pais.? Carter v. Portland,4 Or. 339 (1873)
?ÿ?? ??the public acquires only an easement in a street which has been dedicated or condemned for its use.? McQuaid v. Portland & Vancouver Ry. Co (1889)
?ÿ??In this state the rule is that where land has been dedicated or appropriated for a public street, the fee in that street remains in the original owner subject only to the public easement.???? Portland Baseball Club v. Portland, 142 Or. 13, 18 P.2d 811 (1933)
?ÿ??... not to deprive a party to title to the land, but to estop him or her, while the dedication continues in force, from asserting that right of exclusive possession and enjoyment which the owner of property has.?- City of Burlingame v. Norberg, 210 Cal. 105, 290 P. 587
?ÿ??The dedication involves rather a right to the use of the land against interference from the dedicator.? ?? DeCastello v. Cedar Rapids, 153 N. W. 353.
?ÿI hope some of this helps...
Thanks Mike, very helpful!!
...?yer seein?? Double? ?ÿ I blame it on the sketchy cell service out here on the brink of civilization...
Hope you don't mind Mike, I basically swiped your post and copied it into an email, I did not cite you ??ÿ
Hope you don't mind Mike,?ÿ
Not at all Moe. Those are lifted from a dog and pony show I put together about dedication laws in Oregon, with the emphasis on Oregon. Mileage may vary in other states, but I think a lot of the basic principles of common law are echoed in these Oregon cases, with some minor local variations.?ÿ
?ÿ"?ÿbrink of civilization..."?ÿ
Sure blame it on the cell service rather than accept the fact "Jose Cuervo" is the main contributing factor. Perhaps you should consider a cell phone with them big 'ol numbers on them, you know like a Jitterbug or something similar.?ÿ ? ?ÿ
Hope y'all are having a great time!
...?yer seein?? Double? ?ÿ I blame it on the sketchy cell service out here on the brink of civilization...
To make you feel even worse about missing out: I gleefully rose out of slumber to the surprise gift of 8" of fresh lifegiving snow. What's wonderful about this snowfall is the first 2" that fell first as rain then as very wet snow. This mix allowed me a good hour of workout of pushing, picking it up, throwing it over my patio and deck fences. Don' need the gym this morning since I'm covered in sweat even though it's a balmy 14f outside. Now don' you feel silly missing out on all that.
I feel for you-?ÿ things are better in K-town- I just checked because if it was snowing- I was going to extend my tickets....
I feel for you-?ÿ things are better in K-town- I just checked because if it was snowing- I was going to extend my tickets....
We must be the lucky ones ??ÿ
