My issue is in the State of Kansas (and I'm long winded here):
The original owner of several unplatted tracts has sold off many pieces of the several tracts by metes-and-bounds descriptions that did not include within the description that part of the land used for street right of way. Does the original owner still retain ownership of the strips or does ownership pass on even though the conveyed lands were only described up to the street right of way lines? In other words, do I tell the client that they still own the land used by the city streets or is it a non-issue?
In one area, the side line went west-southwest towards the north-south street right of way line at a very skewed (obviously non-90å¡) angle but then deflected to the north in the description to follow the 40-ft right of way line ("half-right-of-way" from Section Line, or from the center of the road). So, if the client still retains ownership of the land within the 40-ft right of way, the client needs to know that getting rid of that strip is the best solution for "down the road." If the client does not retain ownership, then the land within the 40-ft right of way gets conveyed along with the rest of the description, even though it isn't included in the metes-and-bounds description...and the dividing ownership line really goes from the deflection point on the 40-ft right of way line westerly (rather than west-southwesterly) to a point in the center of the road (really to a point on Section Line) that is perpendicular from the point of deflection. I'm trying to find out which case is happening here. THEN, the right of way was increased to 50 feet.
To make matters more confusing, I was told by a title company that if the street right of way is "dedicated," then ownership does not go to the center of the road anymore but rather up to and stopping at the right of way line of the dedicated street right of way. He said this is for any land, platted or unplatted. Now that confused me. He spoke as if he really knew his details in this area, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he might possibly "not be wrong," and that maybe he knew something that I had not yet learned. I always thought that if the land was unplatted, the right of way for city roads and county roads was an easement and ownership carried to the center of the road, or to Section Line. I don't have a state highway here, nor am I talking about condemnation cases or larger areas for the construction of city buildings, just regular road corridors. I always thought that ownership only stopped at the street right of way line after the right of way was "dedicated" in the platting process. The word DEDICATED to me meant no longer having to pay taxes on the land within the street right of way because of a platting process. This land is all unplatted.
In one of the conveyances, the description went to the 30-ft right of way line. The new owner platted that land and dedicated 20 feet of the description for an overall of a 50-ft right of way, but the new owner could only plat what they owned, which was only up to the 30-ft right of way line. So in that area, it looks to me like, there is a 30-ft easement still owned by the original owner and a strip going from the 30-ft right of way line to the 50-ft right of way line that is dedicated from the plat and is not owned by the original owner.
So far, it looks to me like ALL of the street rights of way for the unplatted lands are just easements, even if a document says "right of way agreement," and the client owned up to Section Line all around...and conveying land only up to the right of way line left strips of land that the client still owns and needs to dedicate to the city for a dollar to clean up the clutter.
Hmm.
Yes. As far as I know, pretty much as you describe. If it's been platted and the municipality accepted the dedications, the ownership stops at the dedicated right of way. If not platted, not accepted, or not "taken" as a right of way, the ROW is an easement, and still within ownership and taxed. If there was a later ROW "take" to widen the street to 50' it may have somehow included the existing 30' ROW easement. If nothing was ever built, some states let the owner ask the municipality to vacate the ROW. Hope this helps.
I don't know anything about Kansas, but I do know a bit about property tax assessment. I'm a Justice of the Peace in Vermont; one of my duties is to sit with the other JPs, the selectmen, and the town clerk as the Board of Civil Authority (BCA). The BCA hears appeals of property tax assessment, and sends a subcommittee of three members to visit the property. The value of the property is supposed to be the fair market value. Since the fair market value of a property will ordinarily be the same whether the town owns the roadbed or merely has a easement, the tax should be the same either way. But a property owner would be well-advised to look into the details of the assessment for the owned property and neighboring properties, to make sure the value is being calculated the same way as other similar properties in the town.
Time again for the attached. Jp
Right of Ways are generally easements (of a particular sort - a "super easement" - if you will) and the fee is assumed to go to the centerline regardless of what the deed calls out. Unless the deed makes an express reservation of the road, and/or unless an intent to pass fee title to the right of way is expressed. Courts assume that the subdivider did not intend to retain narrow strips of land that would serve no purpose to them.
I have one case of a small subdivision in a small city where the landowner went through the entire platting process because the city wanted him to do it. Then the city decided that the short street and cul-de-sac still belonged to him for some unknown reason. So, when he sold his last piece of land someone somewhere informed him that he also needed to deed a metes and bounds description for the street to go with it. What is crazy is that the piece he had kept for himself was remote from the street they insisted he include in the deed. Now, there is a fellow who thinks he owns the street but has no idea why.
In every other case I can think of where a plat was made and went through the standard process the street becomes effectively the property of the municipality. Rural subdivisions are a bit weird in that respect as the county has no desire to "own" the subdivision streets, but will maintain them. Meanwhile, the appraisers treat them as not being the property of the owners of the adjoining lots.
At least in Washington, dedicated roads do not transfer fee title to the underlying property. Title to the centerline is presumed to belong to the abutting property owners.
Holy Cow, post: 377919, member: 50 wrote: I have one case of a small subdivision in a small city where the landowner went through the entire platting process because the city wanted him to do it. Then the city decided that the short street and cul-de-sac still belonged to him for some unknown reason. So, when he sold his last piece of land someone somewhere informed him that he also needed to deed a metes and bounds description for the street to go with it. What is crazy is that the piece he had kept for himself was remote from the street they insisted he include in the deed. Now, there is a fellow who thinks he owns the street but has no idea why.
The underlying principle here is that the moronic actions of idiotic public officials and bureaucrats are boundless.
Jim_H, post: 377927, member: 11536 wrote: At least in Washington, dedicated roads do not transfer fee title to the underlying property. Title to the centerline is presumed to belong to the abutting property owners.
In the PLSS states I've worked in, the opposite is true. Dedicated rows are not owned by adjacent landowners, they are perpetuated forever to the public. Unless abandoned for some reason, then they revert to adjacent owners. All state highways are owned, in fee, by the state. I grew up in CA, but left before I knew much about surveying. I remember my dad, who knew a little about surveying talking about owning to the center of the street.
Brian Allen, post: 377936, member: 1333 wrote: The underlying principle here is that the moronic actions of idiotic public officials and bureaucrats are boundless.
In Oregon, and everywhere else I reckon, the majority of case law affirming the principle that the adjoiners own the right of way are the results of cities believing the vacated right of way was theirs. Fahey v. City of Bend (1969) has been cited in a half dozen Oregon cases and even one out in Maine.
