The east line of a new subdivision was platted against the north-south quarter section line on May 11, 1887. The plat shows Seventh Street to have a width of 20' on the west side of the quarter section line.
A petition for a road dated September 17, 1887, was made and then granted along the same north-south quarter section line. Stakes were set at 33' west of the quarter section line. A road survey was filed and plat made in the road record book. The word "easement" is not used, but roads are typically 33' wide each side of section line. No mention of the subdivision and the 20' wide road west of the quarter section line.
On September 22, 1976, a deed for additional R-O-W stated "The east 20 feet of Lot 32, of xxxxx Subdivision".
Where should the additional 20' have been taken - from the original 20' subdivision line or the 33' road line?
At first blush I would say the R/W is 40' from the quarter section line.
An improved road or monuments up to the 53' line may reveal a latent ambiguity and may show the intent in 1976 was 53'.
That a very good question.
I've seen it go both ways. It comes down to what was in the mind of those who wrote the document in 1976. Where did they think (perhaps incorrectly) the east end of the lot was located?
We have a nearby city of about 10,000 pop. that had many blocks laid out with only four lots, which were quarters of the block. Later they added a 15-foot alley down the east-west centerline of almost all of these blocks, thus shortening the effective north-south dimensions by 7.5 feet of the lots on either side of the alley. Some have used the original lot dimension in their intent while others have used the shorter dimension in their intent.
It depends.
The 1976 description apparently took 20' extra from the original 20' while ignoring the 33' making the new ROW width 40'. This only occurred in a couple of places along the line, so some ROW distances on the sectional plat are now shown as 20' and others as 40', but none as 33'.
The County needs to do some tree clearing and ditch grading along the road. Where the ROW appears as 20', the ROW line is barely off the edge of the road. Several surveys were done that have the lot lines at 20', but the County might have the authority to maintain the area out to 33' everywhere and to 40' where the additional ROW was taken. An interesting situation regardless.
That a very good question.
If the governing body’s standard was 33 feet at the time of the road petition; I would think they would have to comply to the 33 foot standard before it would be accepted.
Also, l would see if the deeds of the lots west of the road have any language like “subject to a 33 feet along the east line of said lot 32 for a road.” I would also check the other lot deeds not shown on your example.
Don’t your subdivision roads have to comply with the road standards before the city or county will accept them?
I made a note above on what I think.
Do more reseach.
> The east line of a new subdivision was platted against the north-south quarter section line on May 11, 1887. The plat shows Seventh Street to have a width of 20' on the west side of the quarter section line.
>
> A petition for a road dated September 17, 1887, was made and then granted along the same north-south quarter section line. Stakes were set at 33' west of the quarter section line. A road survey was filed and plat made in the road record book. The word "easement" is not used, but roads are typically 33' wide each side of section line. No mention of the subdivision and the 20' wide road west of the quarter section line.
>
> On September 22, 1976, a deed for additional R-O-W stated "The east 20 feet of Lot 32, of xxxxx Subdivision".
>
> Where should the additional 20' have been taken - from the original 20' subdivision line or the 33' road line?
>
>
Based on face value I would take the 20 foot of right of way out of the platted lot. After all, that's precisely what the deed says.
If they wanted the 20 feet to be west of the 33' road survey the deed should have read accordingly.
Sure, there's always more to it than that but sometime: Were any monuments set? Was there any other pertinent maps filed, etc....
> The 1976 description apparently took 20' extra from the original 20' while ignoring the 33' making the new ROW width 40'...
40' is the safe number for the county to use at this point. 53' might have been intended but - who knows? Probably the 1976 writer relied on the plat alone and wasn't aware of the 33' dedication. If the county needs that extra 13' it will probably be cheaper to buy it than to litigate.
Unless there is some really convincing occupation line, or other evidence, at 53'.
Because the surveyors set the line at 33’, that would be their intent. If the road ROW intent was 40’ or 53’, they would have a record of it. I can’t go with the 53’ or 40’.
Because the ROW was not on a section line, the county should have a road number and a deed dated somewhere around the time of the survey of 33’
All historical maintenance that has occurred outside a specific deeded easement width would more than likely be covered by a presumed prescriptive easement. It's probably a mute issue.
I doubt the county would claim the full petitioned width unless fences and evidence of historical maintenance supported that claim, otherwise it may be top of cut/toe of fill.
I believe the physical existence of the road actually carries more weight than the dedication (width).
Extra strips picked up later could be for cut/fill/drainage easements.