A subdivision was developed creating several lots and had an alley running through the middle of it. Lots were sold, but the alley has not been in use for at least 40 years. It is an over grown mess right now. Specifically looking at the section of alley between lots 58/59A and 39B just below the street labeled as Lovers Lane (hopefully picture 1 below).
Many years later, the remaining property, as shown by the yellow line on (hopefully) picture 2, was sold. When it was sold, it included the 20 foot alley that had been platted in the original subdivision.
I've got to do some more digging in the paper trail to see if there is an explanation of why it was sold the way it was sold, but my initial thought is that the alley should have reverted to the adjoining lots from the original subdivision instead of being included as a part of the second conveyance.
Specifically at the alley:
occupation - none,
monuments - t-post at 59A/60A (E side), axle at 59A (W side), t-post at 61A/62A (E side), fence around vacant land (generally and sporadically follows yellow outline except it does not run up and around the alley)
Opinions?
The alley is a public right of way and, therefore, cannot be adversely possessed. Application could be made to have it vacated.
That line that extends west from the south line of lot 39 is key. That north/south strip is part of the platted area.
First thing I'd do is order a title report. I'd send that picture with the yellow linework to the agent and say give me everything on this area. If that doesn't explain what's going on I'd look up previous deeds to see if the (I assume) common lot and the alley were always included with lot 62 and 63 or if that's something that came about later on. And lastly you could try talking to the adjoiners to get their side of the story.
As Mark said, it is a platted alley and thus a public right-of-way. Unless you can find evidence that it was vacated, it is still a public right-of-way. That being said, the property to the south can rely on it as access to Lover's Lane.
Way to little information here to make any comment. First of all was tha alley just shown on a plat or was it actually dedicated? If it was dedicated it doesn't "revert" to anyone unless the local requirements for vacation are met.
Does the yellow parcel have the same parent parcel as the subdivision?
<div>The plat was about 50 years prior to adoption of subdivision regulations. The only dedication would be the implied dedication by recording the plat.</div>
The yellow parcel was a part of the original tract from which the platted area was made.
"Application could be made to have it vacated."
Kentucky has some statutory language around road abandonment and reversion which makes it such that a formal vacation is not always necessary given certain conditions are met. It occurs automatically when the conditions have been met. There are some cases that delve into that matter. I am headed out to the Kentucky conference to help set things up for tomorrow. I'll look them up and post when I get back in a few days.
"Kentucky has some statutory language around road abandonment and reversion which makes it such that a formal vacation is not always necessary given certain conditions are met. It occurs automatically when the conditions have been met."
This is true, I think, everywhere. When an easement (such as a right of way) has been abandoned it reverts. The trick is to get one and all to agree that abandonment has occurred.
"The yellow parcel was a part of the original tract from which the platted area was made."
I contend that the northerly finger of the yellow parcel had already been dedicated right of way. The seller of the yellow parcel couldn't sell what he no longer owned.
I agree the alley was dedicated on the original plat, and the seller probably couldn't sell what they did not own unless there is language somewhere on the plat or deeds that says it reverts back to the original owner upon abandonment.
Some questions come to mind.
Is there anything that says the alley was for the use and benefit of the remaining (yellow) tract only?
If it is abandoned, did it get split down the centerline and go to the adjoiners, or go back to the original owner since the adjoiners could be the ones that abandoned it in the first place? Most public alleys I've seen can be used by the owners of adjoining tracts.
If it is cleaned up and re-opened, do the adjoiners start using it again (if they ever did), or does the buyer think it is now a private drive for his/her use only?
I see a similar 'alley' opposite this one on the other side of Lovers Lane. Does it lead to another remainder tract that is not shown on the pdf you provided? If so, it is very possible the intent was for these parcels to be private access to the remainder tracts, even if this was not spelled out on the plat or deeds of the adjoining lots. This might be why the one you're asking about is overgrown and not being used by the adjoiners.
After a second look, I would lean to the opinion that the intent was to provide access to the remainder tract only, and not to be a secondary access to the adjoining lots. More info is needed.
What makes this an alley? Is there verbiage on the plat? I don't see it noted/labeled. Why can it not be just a narrow strip of land? How did it obtain status as a public right of way?
Good point. But Mark's comment about the line extending west from the south line of lot 39B, and the lack of one extending from the north line of lot 39B, makes it look like it was a dedicated R/W. And since it is much narrower than the street, it looks like a typical 'alley'.
