I'm working on a survey of a lot with a 30' vacated right of way.?ÿ The area is currently used as a private driveway between several parcels and also contains public utilities. The 30' ROW was dedicated in a plat in 1961 and was vacated a few years later in 1966. The vacation ordinance doesn't say anything about who got title to the street. Everything I have seen is consistent that the 30 feet went entirely to the lots in the plat, all in section 18 and none of the street went to the parcels to the south in section 19. This includes a few surveys, the original site plan for the house,?ÿ the assessor map etc
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35.79.040
Looking at the RCW it seems like 15' would have gone to the parcels in the plat and the other 15' would go to the properties to the south.?ÿ Does anyone know of any exceptions to this law? I am going to give these clients a not nice surprise when I tell them their property is 15' smaller than they assume but need to be sure that I'm correct.
?ÿ
They may own 15 ft, but usage has probably established easements.
The thing is always to look at where the dedicated road came out of in the first place.
What does their deed say? Can you determine if it's 30' or 15' from the deed? you can only survey what they have legal title to.
This is a title issue; not a survey issue. I know we want to help our clients, but if you tell them, one way, or the other, you're sticking your neck out, if their deed is not clear.
Collect all the evidence; present it to the title company, attorney, and anyone else who's job it is to determine title, and let the chips fall where they may.
@dougie?ÿ
Thanks that is a good suggestion.?ÿ The deed has weird phrasing usually it would say the portion that attached by operation of law or something like that but their deed just says: together with that portion of 48th street vacated by Ordinance no 153 adjoining on the south side of lot 13 ...(of the plat) which I could interpret as meaning all of the street adjacent?ÿ
Get ahold of Ordinance No. 153; that will shed a lot more light.
Generally, what I have found; when a Right -of-Way, dedicated in a plat, is vacated, it only goes to lots in the plat. But I would think, if the adjoiner on the other side, wanted to claim they own 15'; they could have a pretty good case, based on the RCW.
I am interested in this, being what the RCW sited in the OP says.
I would be reading that vacation ordinance very thoroughly.?ÿ
Maybe Washington is different but all the states I know for sure about will have the original dedicator and assigns retain reversionary rights to a dedicated street.?ÿ
Maybe Washington is different
To summarize, where the right of way is a dedication, as most are, the adjoining owner already holds fee title to the dedicated area and the vacation simply has the effect of removing the right of way easement.?ÿ In the rare cases where the right of way is held in fee, and is to be vacated, then the vacated land would be apportioned out equally to the adjoiners in accordance with the RCW.?ÿ ?ÿ
Don't know if this applies but if I owned to the section line and I gave up a 30' ROW from the section line and later that ROW was vacated, I should get the whole 30' back. My adjoining neighbor who gave up nothing for the establishment of the ROW should not now benefit by getting half of the vacation. I would be surprised to find a court case where the adjoining neighbor got half of what used to be wholly mine.
To summarize, where the right of way is a dedication, as most are, the adjoining owner already holds fee title to the dedicated area and the vacation simply has the effect of removing the right of way easement.?ÿ In the rare cases where the right of way is held in fee, and is to be vacated, then the vacated land would be apportioned out equally to the adjoiners in accordance with the RCW.?ÿ ?ÿ
That's my reading of this as well. Dedication for a right-of-way (a specific purpose) is by definition an easement rather than a fee conveyance.
@lurker yes that is roughly the situation. You have inspired me to pull out my copy of Broadus and the answer is right there on page 180. Probably could have checked there before posting online.
?ÿ
the lot "carries with it the abutting fee ownership in the street" so they are entitled to the entire 30' vacated street as long as the adjoining property wasn't owned by the same person that dedicated the plat.?ÿ
Problem solved
?ÿ
@sean-r-m But if you hadn't posted on line we all could not have benefited from your research and the resulting education.
@sean-r-m LOL I was about to go pull my copy of Broadus off the shelf to check, I was starting to doubt myself.
That RCW is terribly written.
