Government Agency #1 condemns a portion of Smith's property. The Final Order of Condemnation states "...title to said property, as indicated in Amended Exhibits A & B, be vested in Government Agency #1. It records the Order with the County Recorder.
Amended Exhibit A describes Tract No. 1, Tract No. 2 and Area #2 which it says is an "easement for slopes." Amended Exhibit B is quite similar, including an Area described as an "easement for slopes."
A number of years pass, and Government Agency #1 records a "Resolution of Abandonment" with the County Recorder. Therein it "abandons" the property previously described in Amended Exhibits A and B to Government Agency #2, but uses an entirely different description, and says "Together with any slope and drainage easements".
Title to Tract # 1 and Tract #2 is now vested in Government Agency #2. What about Area #2, which was only an easement? (Or was it, since the Final Order of Condemnation stated that "Title" was vested in Government Agency #1?)
Does Government Agency #2 have title to Area #2"? Or does it merely have an easement over that portion of Smith's land?
Abandonment Is Abandonment
One cannot abandon something to someone else except to the original owners, their heirs or assigns.
Agency #1 abandoned everything they had. Agency #2 must retake it, since it was not been given such land in fee by Agency #1. It is now too late for Agency #1 to transfer any fee title.
Have fun.
Paul in PA
Abandonment Is Abandonment
> One cannot abandon something to someone else except to the original owners, their heirs or assigns.
Shooting from the hip, I'm wondering if this holds true in the case of a jurisdictional transfer from one public agency to another. For example, when a portion of county jurisdiction is annexed by a city, I'm wondering if the legally operative action is an abandonment with implied transfer of all rights and responsibilities appropriate to the successor agency. If that's the case, then the abandonment cited above may have effected the transfer of the parcels and all appurtenant rights.
I would say it is still an easement. Yes, they used the word "title", but what was the intent? They also said "as indicated in..." which to me says they did not completely understand the meaning of the word "title" but did want to do what the Exhibits further explained.
Scott
Abandonment Is Abandonment
Caltrans relinquishes R/W to local agencies. They aren't abandoning the R/W, just transferring jurisdiction.
Abandonment Definition
Voluntary relinquishment of possession of thing by owner with intention of terminating ownership without vesting it in any other.
The definition of relinquishment is similar.
It takes expressly correct words to pass title. I say title does not pass to the second agency.
It is however possible that the title was held by the state for the agency and the state may still hold title. Poor choice of words, transfer being a better choice.
Paul in PA
Also, Condemnation Might Have Been For A Purpose
Area #2 the slope easement is pertinent to the taken portion. It is a temporary easement for construction, once construction os complete the easement ceases. The agency cannor claim title without a new taking.
Saying that a condemnation was for a purposes, excludes other uses fot that parcel. Land taken for a roadway cannot latter be used for a storage garage. A roadway use may benefit a parcel, it may add value or diminsh value less than other uses.
Abandonment suggests that that purpose will not occur. In essence a garage use may entitle former owners to additional compensation. For the owners to get that compensation they may have to file an "Inverse Condemnation" action.
Paul in PA
Also, Condemnation Might Have Been For A Purpose
> Area #2 the slope easement is pertinent to the taken portion. It is a temporary easement for construction, once construction os complete the easement ceases. The agency cannor claim title without a new taking.
>
Around here there is nothing temporary about a slope easement. The Drain Commissioner wants to have control over that area forever. Sure they cannot just build or do anything with it, but it is not temporary unless stated to be so.
Scott
There was a purpose...
but none of the parcels involved were ever used for that purpose. Don't want to go there...
Slope easements are not temporary...they are permanent to allow for continued slope maintenance.
It is fairly clear that in this case the intent was to create a roadway corridor and associated slope easements, but I believe that the word "abandonment" was improperly used. It seems that it was meant to be an "assignment" of rights.
Black's definition of Abandonment - Easements is interesting.
I think you and Paul are correct, abandonment is the wrong word to use.
The State of California uses "relinquishment" when transferring a R/W to local agencies (such as an old highway alignment which is still a local street or R/Ws for surface streets that were realigned for the project but are relinquished to the local agency after the project is finished).
If the old road r/w is no longer needed at all then it is either abandoned to the underlying fee owner or in the case of fee it is sold as surplus (either to adjoining owners or as separate parcels depending on the circumstances and what is in the best interests of the State).
I think Area 2 is an easement, not fee.
FOCs typically state the purpose of the condemnation even in fee title takings. Tract 1 and 2 are probably in fee.
I'm not sure about the changed legal description. If it only describes a portion of the fee areas already owned then that would be OK but if they encroach onto private property then that is obviously a problem.