@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
I am interested in this, being what the RCW sited in the OP says.
I would be reading that vacation ordinance very thoroughly.?ÿ
Agreed. I don't know how anyone can make a decision based on not reading the instrument that vacated the R.O.W. (which is an easement unless explicitly called to be fee) Additionally, what legal interest were they vacating, fee simple or an easement interest? He needs to read the original dedicatory language as well, although he may already have.
