I live in an unincorporated area in California, General law County of Ventura. The Board of Supervisors approved the dedication of property
to maintain the public right of ways to include roads, sidewalks and parkway trees in 1961. It receives gas taxes yearly earmarked for this repair,
so we pay the government to maintain this dedicated property. On 23 Dec. 2006, they created an Ordinance, transferring all government duties, responsibilities and liabilities on the public right of ways they approved in a dedication, to the adjacent property owner. California Constitution is subverted. They claim we owe fee and title to the middle of the street. Our property map dimensions show that our property starts 6" before the public sidewalk, clearly, based on dimensions, we don't own public property. Ca Streets and Highways Code 941a and 1806 (1955 and 1957) and Miller and Starr state that in a housing tracts, the County or City that approved the dedication is legal responsible to maintain the public right of way. County has countered with 1911 Improvement Act SHC 5600-5630. Upon my investigation, this was only for a business in a town, never ruled for housing tracts not created till 1945. There were no taxes collected in 1911 for a business in a town to repair the public sidewalk in front of their establishment. So the Municipality posted a bond, was paid back by Business Owners in Towns. SHC 22060 require the Board of Supervisors to maintain the public parkway trees. Their own Ordinance 2041, states that they own everything planted on the parkway, where the tree roots have destroyed their own sidewalks. Jones vs Deeter 1986, requires a Municipality to maintain the parkway trees, including their roots, that have cracked and lifted the public sidewalks. County has written letters to adjacent property owners, claiming we own the public sidewalk. How can we own title and fee when their own Ordinance states they own this property? How can we own property when the dimensions dont go to the middle of the street, only go out 6" before the public sidewalk. How can an easement be placed on the right of ways property when we private property owners dont own a public street, parkway or sidewalk? We pay taxes for government to maintain government property. All court decisions in California dont allow any General law County/City to transfer its own duties to adjacent property owners, while they are collecting gas taxes for this maintenance. Please advise.
Can anyone explain how an easement is created over public property in a housing tract, to include a dedicated public street to a General law County, parkway and a sidewalk? The developer (private property) has a property map performed by a surveyor that defines property lines, home ownership. This is in the deed of trust. The property lines in my housing tract go out to 6" before the public sidewalk. The developer dedicates the streets to the County/City or County representatives, which turns private property to public property, maintenance paid for in gas taxes (transportation budget). Since a public road/street is government property, paid for in maintenance by the Municipality, how can an easement be created. The public street, used by the public is not a private street. Therefore, the private property owners home, based on the dimensions in a property map does not own fee and title (ownership) to the middle of the street. There was a law in California in 1872, where the adjacent property owner was a farm or a business in a town, residential properties were not created till 1945 in California. "The adjacent property owner California Code 831, "An owner of land bounded by a road or street is presumed to own to the center of the way, but the contrary may be shown." The contrary may be shown is expressed in the dimensions in the property map of the County/City. Its the difference between public and private property. If I dont individually own the public street, curb, gutter, parkway and sidewalk, why is their an easement required? Government owns it, no easement is required, or is there? What am I missing?
(Enacted 1872.)
The rebuttable presumption is that you own fee simple title to the centerline of the street subject to the public right of way easement. Although the subdivision plat (aka Tract Map in So.Cal.) appears to show ownership stopping at the street right of way line this is generally not the case in subdivisions.
I've often wondered about agencies requiring property owners to maintain the sidewalks but haven't researched the issue. I think the origin of it can be seen in gold rush towns where the sidewalk is part of the building.
In California law, the presumption is that a property adjoining a public road extends to the center line of the road. In California law, the presumption in a grant of rights for a public way is that only an easement is granted. Lacking a clear grant and acceptance of fee title by a public agency, the operation of the two stated assumptions says the public way is an easement and the property extends to center line. That is the norm in the part of California I'm familiar with. Caltrans is the only agency that I'm aware of that regularly takes fee title for public ways.
The title to the portion of a lot on which the public rights exist is referred to as underlying fee title. You own it, but it's worth is debatable until the public agency abandons the public's rights over it, if ever. Since California law (as I understand it) says the property owner is responsible for the sidewalks in the public way, having that improved street fronting your property both raises the value of the property by making it easily accessible, and imposes a financial obligation on the land owner. Enforcement of the sidewalk responsibility appears to be a choice made by each community.
I too wish sometimes that conditions created by operation of law were more out in the open, e.g. lot lines on tract maps shown to extend to center line.
If you were to post links to, or copies of, the various records you refer to, you might get more response. Or maybe everyone is out hanging Christmas lights, like I should be doing.
I think a clue is that the right of way is "dedicated" and not "conveyed" ( or any other word with a similar meaning) to the public, as fee title would be.
My understanding is that a dedication conveys a right of use and not a Fee Simple ownership. Deeds transfer property and I would bet that no deed ever transferred to the municipality.
This is actually quite interesting, once you do the investigation into the history of public sidewalks and parkway trees.
In most cases, dedication of a street gives the public the immediate right of passage over the street. The reason for this conclusion requires an analysis of the distinction between public acceptance to usea dedicated street versus acceptance to maintain a street. Dedication alone does not burden the municipality with the duty of maintenance unless the municipality accepts the dedication.
Unlike a conveyance in fee, the owner of dedicated property retains ownership of the fee under the dedicated land. However, ÛÏ[a]n offer of dedication is not inconsistent with an intent to convey a fee out to the center lineÛ of the road. In other words, a property owner may dedicate a portion of his land for use by the travelling public and, by conveying lots abutting the dedicated road, convey the fee underneath the road to the center line of the road.
This is where is gets confusing. The owner of the dedicated property was the Developer, not an adjacent property owner, who has yet to purchase this private property. Once the Board approved the dedication, they assume the affirmative duty to maintain. The fee and title does not pass on to the adjacent property owner, due to the dimensions in the property map, which dont go out to the middle of the street, 6" before the sidewalk. If its not defined in a property map, you can own it, period.
Sidewalks were originally created in towns. In the 1800's, they were created in towns, where they were attached to the place of business, wooden sidewalks. Water would rot out the sidewalks, customers would injure themselves. The Municipality did not collect taxes for this repair, posted a bond, then required the business to pay for these repairs. The 1911 Improvement Act, SHC 5600-5630 was created for force the business to pay for this sidewalk repair. State Legislators had no intention to apply this in 1911 to housing tracts, not created in California till 1945. They created 941a abd 1806, specifically for housing tracts in California, based on this dedication My Municipality ignores these current Streets and Highways Codes, applies the 1911 Improvement Act, 5600-5630 which were for towns with wooden sidewalks. Public sidewalks, parkway trees and roads on public property, paid for in gas taxes, not private property. Therefore no General law County has the State authority to transfer their own duty, responsibility and liability on their own property to a private property owner in a housing tract. Jones vs Deeter 1986, Willits vs City of LA 2010, Williams vs Foster, Schaefer vs Lehanan.
Mark Mayer, post: 402217, member: 424 wrote: I think a clue is that the right of way is "dedicated" and not "conveyed" ( or any other word with a similar meaning) to the public, as fee title would be.
The issue I have is that my General law County Board of Supervisors signed a dedication of property in my housing tract in 1961. They maintained theright of ways for 20 years, then stopped. In 2006, they created an Ordinance, transferring all their duties to the adjacent property owners in our housing tract, with no Streets and Highways Code authority. The Current SHC (Streets and Highways Code) 941a and 1806 (1955 and 1957) requires the Municipality to maintain the public right of ways in housing tracts once the dedication is signed. There is no later SHC that gives any General law Municipality to authority to transfer this government duty to private property owners. County is using 1911 Improvement Act, SHC 5600-5630, written for towns, not housing tracts. They have no California Court Case given them this authority, in 150 years.
"If its not defined in a property map, you can't own it, period." Is that you, Francis H.?
mattsib79, post: 402221, member: 1138 wrote: My understanding is that a dedication conveys a right of use and not a Fee Simple ownership. Deeds transfer property and I would bet that no deed ever transferred to the municipality.
My Deed identifies the property map dimensions on the County Map. The dimensions dont go to the middle of the street, they go 6" before the public right of ways start. The Public Right of Ways was dedicated by the Developer in 1961, to the General law County, requiring the County to maintain this property, not the adjacent property owners. Once they signed this dedication, there are no future Streets and Highways Code (Ca Constitution) after 1961, allowing the County to dedicated duties, responsibilities and liabilities to a private property owner, who is paying gas taxes to the government for this maintenance. Quite interesting once you peel the onion.
BajaOR, post: 402225, member: 9139 wrote: "If its not defined in a property map, you can't own it, period." Is that you, Francis H.?
That is also my understanding. How can you owe fee and title ( totalownership) to property outside the dimensions in your housing tract property map, in your deed of trust? My name in Barry from Southern California, going to court against my County for subverting State Constitution. Just trying to get a full understanding of the law, dont want to make a mistake. What am I missing?
Barry G, post: 402227, member: 12296 wrote: ... going to court against my County for subverting State Constitution. Just trying to get a full understanding of the law .....
Barry G, post: 402209, member: 12296 wrote: Since a public road/street is government property, paid for in maintenance by the Municipality, how can an easement be created. The public street, used by the public is not a private street. Therefore, the private property owners home, based on the dimensions in a property map does not own fee and title (ownership) to the middle of the street.
The fee title to the street right of way is not "government property". The "government" (ie/ We, the People, aka the public) has easement rights over it. This is in spite of whatever lines and dimensions may be on a subdivision map. The adjacent property owner holds the fee title. The fee title owner may use the easement / right of way only insofar as it does not interfere with the rights of the easement holder - the public. Which means that they can use it only as a road, just like everybody else.
Be that as it may, I doubt that the minutiae of whether a street dedication is an easement or a fee title has anything to do with the local authorities responsibility to maintain the street.
Two California Streets and Highways Codes deal with boundaries going to the center of the roadway:
- 831 (Bounded by Ways)
- 1112 (Grant of Land Bounded by Highway).
Additionally, monetary consideration is a primary factor in determination of ownership of right-of-way. In a subdivision, the roads are usually dedicated, with no monetary component (thus an easement).
The idea of a roadway easement is affirmed with the concept of abandonment of an easement or right-of-way; the land (use), to the center of a road, reverts back to the adjacent owners when a right-of-way is vacated or extinguished.
Note that most railroads were not just easements, but actually owned in fee. Thus, when railroads are abandoned, they result in separate parcels (or strips) that are frequently taken over by the local public jurisdiction(s). This is the method that many of the "rails to trails" paths are founded upon.
Barry G, post: 402222, member: 12296 wrote: This is actually quite interesting, once you do the investigation into the history of public sidewalks and parkway trees.
In most cases, dedication of a street gives the public the immediate right of passage over the street. The reason for this conclusion requires an analysis of the distinction between public acceptance to usea dedicated street versus acceptance to maintain a street. Dedication alone does not burden the municipality with the duty of maintenance unless the municipality accepts the dedication.
Unlike a conveyance in fee, the owner of dedicated property retains ownership of the fee under the dedicated land. However, ÛÏ[a]n offer of dedication is not inconsistent with an intent to convey a fee out to the center lineÛ of the road. In other words, a property owner may dedicate a portion of his land for use by the travelling public and, by conveying lots abutting the dedicated road, convey the fee underneath the road to the center line of the road.
This is where is gets confusing. The owner of the dedicated property was the Developer, not an adjacent property owner, who has yet to purchase this private property. Once the Board approved the dedication, they assume the affirmative duty to maintain. The fee and title does not pass on to the adjacent property owner, due to the dimensions in the property map, which dont go out to the middle of the street, 6" before the sidewalk. If its not defined in a property map, you can own it, period.
Sidewalks were originally created in towns. In the 1800's, they were created in towns, where they were attached to the place of business, wooden sidewalks. Water would rot out the sidewalks, customers would injure themselves. The Municipality did not collect taxes for this repair, posted a bond, then required the business to pay for these repairs. The 1911 Improvement Act, SHC 5600-5630 was created for force the business to pay for this sidewalk repair. State Legislators had no intention to apply this in 1911 to housing tracts, not created in California till 1945. They created 941a abd 1806, specifically for housing tracts in California, based on this dedication My Municipality ignores these current Streets and Highways Codes, applies the 1911 Improvement Act, 5600-5630 which were for towns with wooden sidewalks. Public sidewalks, parkway trees and roads on public property, paid for in gas taxes, not private property. Therefore no General law County has the State authority to transfer their own duty, responsibility and liability on their own property to a private property owner in a housing tract. Jones vs Deeter 1986, Willits vs City of LA 2010, Williams vs Foster, Schaefer vs Lehanan.
The developer dedicated the R/W easement and kept the underlying fee simple ownership. Under the strips and gores doctrine it is presumed the developer did not intend to keep useless strips of land under the streets but conveyed them to the adjoining lot owners when the lots were sold.
Aside from the great points mentioned above. My first stop with dedication issues is typically the dedication statement on the face of the map, then the acceptances or rejections. 99% of the time the dedication if accepted for public USE, in my own bird brain mind, I believe this is done to not clutter who the reversion rights belong to if the situation arises.
BK9196, post: 402242, member: 12217 wrote: Aside from the great points mentioned above. My first stop with dedication issues is typically the dedication statement on the face of the map, then the acceptances or rejections. 99% of the time the dedication if accepted for public USE, in my own bird brain mind, I believe this is done to not clutter who the reversion rights belong to if the situation arises.
This is how I look at it, quite simple. My General law County signed a dedication in 1961, to maintain the public right of ways in our housing tract. Who owns the fee and title is not relevant. There are no Streets and Highways code after 1961 that allow any General law County to transfer its own duties, responsibilities, and liabilities to maintenance of the right of ways to the adjacent property owners. This County owns the parkway trees, per their own Ordinance, they are responsible to maintain their own parkway trees and roots, that have destroyed their public sidewalk. I cant be held responsible to someones property roots destroying someones public sidewalks. Both properties does show up on my property line. Using a 1911 Improvement Act, 106 year old law for towns wont hold up in court. Any thoughts?
Barry G, post: 402227, member: 12296 wrote: My name in Barry from Southern California, going to court against my County for subverting State Constitution.
Why are you doing this? What is your goal?
The offer and acceptance of dedications for rights of way in unincorporated territory requires a Declaration of Public Highway in order to have the portion of roadway become part of a County's maintained mileage network and qualify for road tax funding. Once the acceptance of improvements takes place, maintenance obligations are triggered. The Subdivision Agreement for the development may modify elements of that, such as landscaping, sidewalks, lighting, utilities and the like.
Continue your research in order to ascertain rights and specific ongoing responsibilities.
epoch date, post: 402233, member: 485 wrote: Two California Streets and Highways Codes deal with boundaries going to the center of the roadway:
- 831 (Bounded by Ways)
- 1112 (Grant of Land Bounded by Highway).
Additionally, monetary consideration is a primary factor in determination of ownership of right-of-way. In a subdivision, the roads are usually dedicated, with no monetary component (thus an easement).
The idea of a roadway easement is affirmed with the concept of abandonment of an easement or right-of-way; the land (use), to the center of a road, reverts back to the adjacent owners when a right-of-way is vacated or extinguished.
Note that most railroads were not just easements, but actually owned in fee. Thus, when railroads are abandoned, they result in separate parcels (or strips) that are frequently taken over by the local public jurisdiction(s). This is the method that many of the "rails to trails" paths are founded upon.
California Code 831: An owner of land bounded by a road or street is presumed to own to the center of the way, but the contrary may be shown.
(Enacted 1872.) But the contrary may be shown is defined in a property map dimension.
A transfer of land, bounded by a highway, passes the title of the person whose estate is transferred to the soil of the highway in front to the center thereof, unless a different intent appears from the grant. - See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1112.html#sthash.Vygz73qL.dpuf .
The easement is owned by the County and is responsible to maintain that easement, once the dedication is approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Edward Reading, post: 402249, member: 132 wrote: Why are you doing this? What is your goal?
I am trying to figure this all out, before I go to State Superior Court and have this Illegal ordinance removed. I want to make sure Im correct in my analysis. Dont want to waste my money and time, if Im not correct. Thousands of people are affected by this Illegal Ordinance, many are getting liens on their property. I want to make sure Im not missing something.
