Who gets the voids?

I would say the heirs own those strips. Never sold, still in the ownership. Seems simple... 😉

Implied easements burdening them? Yup.
Do you have statutes on landlocked parcels?

a real can of worms you have there.

Those parcels are too big to dream of strips and gores. The heirs will likely have the best shot, except where fact patterns may have transferred title by operation(s) of law. The practical answer might be whoever can afford a quiet title action...

They are still strips of land for public and or private access.

The ones that are all grown up are still the legal access to probable land locked tracts even if they are all owned by the same person because it is possible that they would be sold off again to others.

I know the process in Texas to obtain the land and it would take a period public notice and attempt to locate and notify long lost heirs and court action. A person would really want to own the land because it would not be so cheap.

Hmm, abandoned real estate (land only) usually escheats to the State.?ÿ Generally can't abandon real property (house, riparian rights). State could then transfer to another municipal entity or sell it.?ÿ Since 1918 is a tong time, I would bet your State escheat statute could be used to clear it up.?ÿ

Did the Owner abandon it?
Maybe the grand plan of private roads and gated community was not implemented before she died... and her heirs were not privy to that plan.
We will not know that answer until we to cross over and discuss it with her 😉

I would avoid any court action (quiet title included). The courts usually make nobody happy.
Work with the heirs, educate them... lay out the options.

I had a project with a similar situation of an area . The parcels were described with perimeter descriptions and then " known as Lot X, Block X in the unrecorded Plat of XXX". No drawing of the Plat has ever been found, no street dedications until the 1960's when the town established a sewer system and landowners granted streets. I was doing some work and noticed a void in the deeds between two houses a client owned?ÿso advised him to file a quiet title action with the courts. The attorney contacted the town and they claimed title to the parcel,?ÿstating it was a street and even though it wasn't dedicated, the intention was for public use and access. Note: the parcel was 40' wide and about 80' long from a?ÿdeeded street to a cliff and the town had granted the client's father a building permit in the 1940s so a 2 story garage filled most of the area (produced as evidence at the hearing). The town attorney hadn't even walked the 6 blocks from city hall to look at the area nor looked at the exhibit maps we provided, just stated it would need to go through a street vacation process and kept stating our client couldn't file an adverse claim against the town. The judge disagreed with the town because they couldn't prove any public monies had been used to open the street?ÿand issued the building permit. The entire process took about a year which wasted time and money, public and private.

I feel any voids or deed gaps should be addressed when we find them, ?ÿno matter how old, and whether heirs can be found or not.

I'm waiting for Mike Berry to chime in.

It seems from your description of the circumstances that these strips were clearly intended to be streets and not reserved for some other purpose. There is an Oregon case dealing with a similar circumstance.?ÿ In that case the streets had been properly dedicated but had been vacated by the time predecessors in interest took title. The court put title to the roadway in the adjoining property owner, saying:

"...in the absence of an express reservation of the title to the strip it may be assumed that the grantor intends the title to pass. This implication is made on the ground that the grantor would normally have no use for the small narrow strips of land constituting the street portion of his lot. It has also been said that this rule of construction is founded on the policy of discouraging vexatious litigation...."?ÿ ?ÿ

The more recent Oregon case of Howe v. Greenleaf?ÿcontinues on the same vein.

Thanks, guys. ?ÿMy interest in this does not involve a survey. ?ÿCertain levels of bad behavior is happening within one of these strips. ?ÿThe local law enforcement agencies are preparing to address those problems. ?ÿHowever, the form of the charges depends on the ownership status of the site.

How does Kansas do their mineral rights? If there is oil under the strip of land then you may see a Court fight.

You can try to figure out the Intent of her selling the various tracts with various road widths, which may or may not prove she wanted the land to be public roads.

You can find out who has been paying the taxes of the stripes since 1918.

I can see the heirs having a say in the matter, and could make a point they have a better claim to the land then the City and or County.?ÿ

I do feel the strip has a public access easement, but that doesnt mean the land is public or city land.

Posted by: thebionicman

Those parcels are too big to dream of strips and gores. The heirs will likely have the best shot, except where fact patterns may have transferred title by operation(s) of law. The practical answer might be whoever can afford a quiet title action...

These are exactly the kinds of parcels the doctrine of strips and gores is ment to address. Often a land surveyor can apply the doctarain as appropriate; however, in this case there is a lack of clarity in the intentions, since the roads were never dedicated. A court would be required to apply to the doctarine here.

Ideally the heirs could be tracked down and quit claim deeds could be obtained, then attorneys and and judges could be avoided.

This ain't Texas...

But still a good argument:

The requirements for applying the strip and gore doctrine are as follows: It is the court's conclusion that this doctrine was conceived and intended to apply to relatively narrow strips of land, small in size and value in comparison to the adjoining tract conveyed by the grantor. In these instances, when it is apparent that the narrow strip has ceased to be of benefit or importance to the grantor of the larger tract, it can be presumed that the grantor intended to convey such a strip. The strip and gore doctrine requires the strip (1) to be small in comparison to the land conveyed, (2) to be adjacent to or surrounded by the land conveyed, (3) to belong to the grantor at the time of conveyance, and (4) to be of insignificant or little practical value. Although case law has stated the fourth requirement is that the strip has to be of insignificant or little practical value, the court believe the fourth requirement should be stated as in other case law: the strip has ceased to be of benefit or importance to the grantor of the larger tract.[Escondido Servs.,LLC v. VKM Holdings, LP, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 4260 (Tex. App. Eastland June 3, 2010)]

Strips and gores is not intended to quiet title to what could be valuable land. I got the impression some of these strips could be buildable lots or street access for a future subdivision.

I don't see where anyone mentions what is in the documents pertainong to wills and estate distribution regarding the heirs.

If they are buildable lots, then you are right, but I get the impression that building on the "strips" would block access to landlocked parcels, and there is likely some sort of easement across them. If that is the case the value is low and the doctrine would apply.?ÿ

The answer lies in the details. Either way, I wouldn't be making a call on this on my own.?ÿ

?ÿ

I'm gonna lead with the typical, "The rules in your state are different than mine" speech.

Now, that said, I had a very similar situation here (Virginia) a couple years ago. Town lots got sold off until there was nothing left of the original tract, except for a 40' wide section of "street" only one block long. This is currently the last block ending at town limits. The adjoiner is a 1200 acre tract. The owner of the 1200 acres was speculating development. After a lot of research, title examination, lawyers fees, etc. it was determined the 40' by 800' strip belonged to the heirs. There is actually a paved "street" in the strip, and has been my entire life. The final results were:

1. The heirs own it, but no one can find any of them to offer to purchase the property.

2. Only lots fronting on this section of street have legal access (prescriptive) by using it. Also, the owners of these lots have been pooling funds to maintain the pavement. It is not state maintained. Though interestingly enough VDOT named it and placed a street sign there.

3. The street there can not be extended, and no new street with in the 1200 acres can be tied in to it. (To prevent through traffic.)

Not sure if this is any help to you, but that's how the cookie crumbled in rural Virginia.

Chris, assuming it is a Filed Map street and any lots were sold it is doubtful the heirs still have full rights to it. It extended to the 1200 acres most likely with full intent of granting them access to public roads.

Even if had no lots fronting it and was in full control of the heirs there is still a remedy in PA. A landlocked party can sue for access. If the heirs don't show up in court they lose. Plus preventing through traffic may be against the public interest. Also Spite Strips to prevent access by others is not in the public interest.

Lastly if the heirs cannot be found how are they paying the taxes on all this variety of strips? I would say they have defaulted to the taxing authority.

Paul in PA

Paul,

The last I heard of it, was the plan was for a tax sale of the strip due to unpaid taxes like you said. The 1200 acres has over 1000 feet of state road frontage another road, so it isn't land locked. The developer wanted as many access points as possible, which makes sense. But it never got resolved, because the developer went bankrupt before he really even got started. A man a knew owned the 1200 acres, had made a deal to sell to the developer owner financed. The developer made payments for several years, defaulted on the loan, and the land reverted back to the owner. After that the whole argument was put on hold.

The owner died about 4 months ago, leaving his entire estate to Liberty University which is about an hour and half away from here. They have done nothing with it yet. Maybe we will get a college! If so, I'm sure the battle will continue.?ÿ

Don't know the laws there, but does derelict fee come into play, and maybe the abutting lots own the street-shaped parcels?

?ÿ