This should be educational for the newer surveyors out there.
Here is the situation. A highway runs along the north line of the tract and is owned in fee simple by the DOT. The highway width (r-o-w to most) is uniform based on the center line. The highway center line is near but is not on the north section line (PLSS twist added). The tract, lying to the south of the highway, has an east line that is not perpendicular to either the highway center line or the section line.
The assignment is to determine the location of the line that would describe the eastern end of that portion of the highway that would be awarded to the tract to its south if the highway were to cease to exist. The line would begin at what is now the northeast corner of the tract.
Does the line then run:
1) as an extension of the tract boundary (straight)?
2) perpendicular to the center line of the highway?
3) perpendicular to the section line?
The answer of course is, it depends. We need to know where lines were prior to the highway. The most common situation here is the line was originally extended to meet the Section line.
A fee simple highway is different than an easement or a dedication, at least in my state, two different sets of rules, the DOT could sell it to whoever it wants in that case.
Trick question. I'm with Moe.
Depends. How is option 3 a possibility? Need an option 4) none of the above for when "cease to exist" means the highway was sold to the property owner on the north.
The tract of concern did not exist until about one year ago, so the highway had been there for decades prior to that.
Please don't laugh. I already handled that job for everyone else. Here is why there is a need to know where the line goes. In this area it is very uncommon for mineral rights to have ever been severed from the surface rights and everything else. The oil/gas company that has a lease on the northeast quarter of a section, including the small tract referred to above, believes the 10 to 15 acres of highway land along the north and east sides of the quarter section never had a claim to the mineral rights under those strips of land as the DOT only purchased the surface rights. The remainder of the quarter section had been held by a single owner until the little tract was cut off last year. The oil/gas company had made full payment to that owner but now claims there is a problem with how the deeds have been handled and are demanding to have some legal work performed. They want a description for the small amount of highway land adjacent to the little tract and they want a description for all of the remaining highway land. Then they want deeds between parties claiming or disclaiming mineral interests. What a joke!
Holy Cow, post: 412733, member: 50 wrote: The tract of concern did not exist until about one year ago, so the highway had been there for decades prior to that.
Please don't laugh. I already handled that job for everyone else. Here is why there is a need to know where the line goes. In this area it is very uncommon for mineral rights to have ever been severed from the surface rights and everything else. The oil/gas company that has a lease on the northeast quarter of a section, including the small tract referred to above, believes the 10 to 15 acres of highway land along the north and east sides of the quarter section never had a claim to the mineral rights under those strips of land as the DOT only purchased the surface rights. The remainder of the quarter section had been held by a single owner until the little tract was cut off last year. The oil/gas company had made full payment to that owner but now claims there is a problem with how the deeds have been handled and are demanding to have some legal work performed. They want a description for the small amount of highway land adjacent to the little tract and they want a description for all of the remaining highway land. Then they want deeds between parties claiming or disclaiming mineral interests. What a joke!
You need to do a mineral survey, I would contact a good mineral guy or gal (a mineral title guy, they know what's what).
And I don't mean a mineral survey that is done by a mineral surveyor (the kind Gene or Loyal do, I'm sure they can handle this although this a different type of mineral survey), but one that proportions the mineral ownership between properties, then there needs to be a mineral title search which is a whole nuther thing, they will need you to figure out acreages and they need to tell you who owns what. My very wild a$$ guess is that the new guy owns nothing under the highway, it would be unusual if he somehow does.
I would also say that unless the minerals were reserved when the highway was created then the state owns whatever minerals the grantor did under the highway, which isn't unusual at all.
If they were reserved I can't see how the new people acquired minerals under the highway, they are probably still vested in the grantor or someone earlier in the chain.
You are on the right track. The oil/gas company claims the DOT has no claim to minerals. How they know that, I'm not sure. Especially as there are a minimum of three different creations of the total area that is now considered to be owned by the DOT. I'm simply guessing this is a standard assumption that is used by that oil/gas company so as to view quarter sections as being standard whether or not there are any kind of roads involved.
I've done quite a few of these, I have done some where the railroad had minerals and they didn't want them, so we had to partition the railroad ROW. That was fairly simple cause there were large landowners either on each side or one owner was on both sides.
I've never heard of the state refusing minerals however, that would be a new one for sure.
If the minerals were reserved by the grantor then the DOT doesn't have them, if they were reserved prior to the grantor then they also are cut out, in any case the minerals should go to the grantor if DOT is cut out, not a later grantee outside of the ROW. The minerals should be tied to that ROW parcel and it would be the heirs who own them. The only way I can see an adjoiner getting them is if the adjoiner is the heir or the grantor of the ROW reserved them then granted them to the adjoiner in some fashion when he sold to the adjoiner. But,,,,,,, different states, different rules I suppose, maybe there is a statute that covers this situation.
I wouldn't dismiss what the O&G company says, it's been my experience that they often have some good title people, but the mineral title people need to direct you on this one.
Does there deed call to be bounded by the highway or section? To me, that would determine where the new line is run to.
I'm sure as far as extension or perpendicular would depend on state to state. Somewhere I think I read in vacations that it would go perpendicular so acute lines don't run ridiculously in front of an adjoiner.
(Sorry, I didn't read all the rest of the posts, I was just responding to the trivial nature of the OP)
The deed to the little tract stops at the highway line. Historically speaking, there was the entire northeast quarter. One highway deed dates to the 1920's, another to the 1940's and the last (giant triangle off the northeast corner of the section) in the 1950's. The now deceased owner from about the 1960's to a couple of years ago owned the entire northeast quarter less the highway lands. The oil/gas lease started about 2005 and, apparently, was considered to be for the entire northeast quarter. The owner's three heirs each received one third of the land but the tract on the far west actually only touched the highway along the north side for a total of less than 200 feet. That's what I'm calling the little tract. This goes far outside of the initial post, of course.
My question was focused on how to place this divide line, whether it is really valid for mineral interest purposes or not.
Extend the property line straight out, make it perpendicular to the edge of the highway land or make it perpendicular to the section line regardless of the relative bearing of the edge of the highway land.
The way vacated rights of way are handled varies from state to state. The key in the state I am most familiar with would be where the property line was prior to the creation of the ROW. The subsequent divisions of the the original two properties would get portions of the road to their parent tract's former boundary. If the area of the road is insignificant the sideline might be just extended to the old boundary. If the area is is significant the divisions would be treated like the division of accretion.
No doubt each state has their own rules about these distributions.
The Title experts should be in control deciding who gets what, but if the DOT got a parcel in fee simple, I don't see how the three adjoiners have reversionary rights which is what we are talking about. If it's a restricted fee like a dedicated subdivision street In my state then they would retain reversionary rights.
If that's true, then I would treat the property line as if it's a lot line in a platted subdivision and proceed from there.
The line in question can't be described. It does not exist.
MightyMoe, post: 412641, member: 700 wrote: A fee simple highway is different than an easement or a dedication, at least in my state, two different sets of rules, the DOT could sell it to whoever it wants in that case.
Absolutely true though it shouldn't be. The Government should only acquire rights they need and surrender them when done.
MightyMoe, post: 412897, member: 700 wrote: No doubt each state has their own rules about these distributions.
The Title experts should be in control deciding who gets what, but if the DOT got a parcel in fee simple, I don't see how the three adjoiners have reversionary rights which is what we are talking about. If it's a restricted fee like a dedicated subdivision street In my state then they would retain reversionary rights.If that's true, then I would treat the property line as if it's a lot line in a platted subdivision and proceed from there.
Fee simple deeds to DOTs that I have seen usually contain language specifying that the purpose of the strip is for a highway . DOT does not loose title by ceasing to use
thebionicman, post: 412953, member: 8136 wrote: Absolutely true though it shouldn't be. The Government should only acquire rights they need and surrender them when done.
The government needs to pay the owner fair market value. If government can't then sell the property when they are done with it the tax payers will be fleeced.
Something interesting to observe is how land owners react to the arrival of the appraisers doing their job for acquisition of additional right-of-way, whether fee simple or not. The law generally requires the entire property be appraised twice. First, as it is. Second, how it may be following the removal of the small strip or odd chunk. This requires the appraiser to evaluate EVERYTHING about the property, including a very detailed study of every inch of the house, garage, other buildings, swimming pool, putting green, whatever physically comprises the definition of real estate. The area being taken may have a true value of $100 but a several thousand dollar appraisal is dictated nonetheless.
aliquot, post: 413023, member: 2486 wrote: Fee simple deeds to DOTs that I have seen usually contain language specifying that the purpose of the strip is for a highway . DOT does not loose title by ceasing to use.
I agree, once a strip is granted as fee simple to the state then they get whatever is granted, I would assume that minerals were reserved from that grant, otherwise why would the O&G company want to split it up.
The O&G company doesn't have a dog in the fight, they need to distribute mineral royalties and it's in their interest to get it right.
Denying a mineral owner their portion can get expensive quickly.
The state supreme court (WY) has already ruled that when there are reversionary rights to a dedicated road (I.E. a restricted fee simple ownership) then minerals are granted to the reversionary owner, the status of the road is irrelevant to the ownership of the minerals, it can be active or vacated.
Minerals are a title question and you have to go with the lawyers opinion, the surveyor can help out and he should have it explained to him what is needed, then you can make the correct decisions.
What happens in one state can be very different in another.
aliquot, post: 413023, member: 2486 wrote: Fee simple deeds to DOTs that I have seen usually contain language specifying that the purpose of the strip is for a highway . DOT does not loose title by ceasing to use
The government needs to pay the owner fair market value. If government can't then sell the property when they are done with it the tax payers will be fleeced.
If I buy an easement for a limited purpose that's all I pay for and all I own. The fleecing occurs when the $800 strip devalues my property, then gets sold to others so they can hold me hostage.
The government should not acquire property rights beyond a stated public purpose. The public shouldn't have to compete with the goverment...