> That is inconclusive evidence in this state.
But it's evidence.
Does using 33ft cause an encroachment?
Steve
I'd be checking thew general correspondence file and the parcel packet to see if they reveal any additional details concerning the note on the map. Even if you don't find a smoking gun, they can be entertaining reading.
The one common thread in the States I work in is, they are all different. I work primarily in Idaho so I will stay here for the discussion.
I have a book with a chart of statutes, court cases and attorney general opinions related to road creation and abandonment. It is intricate and lengthy. It amazes me how things were done at various times. Point being, there isn't likely an answer from outside your State.
Around here it would be prescriptive to the top of cut / fence. It may go the 66 if the map you have is considered part of the road inventory.
Whoooo doggies, that's a good one.
What should have happened and what really happened appear to be two different things unless some sort of official documentation can be found. Quite a number of things COULD have happened, but only you will ever know which ones definitely did not happen. The rest of us can guess all night.
I have seen State highway plans with rights-of-way shown that did not match official documents. Some too narrow and some too wide. In one case, where a company installing telephone line cut a private gas line, the judge ruled the highway plans did not conform to record documents and that the line cut was on private property not highway right-of-way. Very expensive. In a different situation where the highway was widened through a small city numerous deeds were recorded for each partial lot and block acquired along the route, the situation was that the right-of-way shown on the plans did not come close to agreeing with the deeds, falling both directions from the deed lines at various points.
My gut tells me a more correct note would be "used 33 ft from CL for ROW as needed. " Where the road is fenced about 54 ft wide I'm betting it's the original ROW. There are other stretches where I think it's original on one side and 33 on the other. The pre paving topo kind of backs this up.
I would say that if the right-of-way is @ 66', it would be an easement at best. That could mean that the adjoiner's property description could still including the underlying ground. The area on the assessor's site could be to the center of the right-of-way and the road easement would be an easement (prescriptive or otherwise) across the property. Ergo they could be paying taxes on the property and that would not be sufficient evidence to say what the width of the right-of-way is.
> I have a book with a chart of statutes, court cases and attorney general opinions related to road creation and abandonment. It is intricate and lengthy.
Is this a published book that your willing to share the title of?
I'd be interested in reading something like that.
I believe many of the basic principles are based upon common law and would be the same in many states.
There is no question it is an easement. There are two terms on the map causing an ambiguity, "used" and "66 ft'". The word "used" I believe restricts the easement to the land land used by the grade, ditches, backslope and roadway fences. The land outside the fences has always been used by the adjacent owners. The road authority has never made any effort to prohibit that use.
Road and Access law in Idaho. It is from NBI. I think I have first and fifth editions. These can be hit and miss as they are prepared by locals as books for 1 day seminars. This one is by far the most valued in the series. I used it to model my research in the other States I work in. Even though the events are all different it gave me an outline for organizing my research..
Thanks, I 'll look it up.
linebender, I was only making a point about the use of what the tax assessor is using as the landowner's area as evidence.
Mark
I get that, I have no problem with your reply. Sorry if it came off that way.