roger_LS, post: 402634, member: 11550 wrote: After reading some of this thread, I am still unclear about this concept of ownership going to the middle of the street. When, in a semi-modern subdivision, property lines are drawn to the edge of the right of way and the City accepts the dedication, when does this ever come into effect except when the road may happen to be abandoned? If ownership is a "bundle of rights", what rights are being retained other than in the unlikely situation, in most cases, where the street is abandoned?
You and I agree Roger. Director of Public Works writes me a letter stating "Accordingly, you are the owner of the fee title to the centerline of the portion of your street abutting your parcel, notwithstanding that the parcel on the tract map does not show your ownership to extend beyond the front lot line, or that you do not pay property tax for that portion of your street." Why would I not pay property tax if I own the fee title? So property dimensions dont define property? I own a house and a car, have a deed that defines my ownership. I dont have deed for a street or sidewalk or parkway, its public property, not private property. The Public pays taxes for public property maintenance, not private property.
Warren Smith, post: 402638, member: 9900 wrote: The owner of your subdivision offered for dedication for public use, the roads shown on the map. The Board of Supervisors approved the subdivision, and accepted for public use, the roads shown on the map. The County does not own the right of way shown on the map, but administers the public use of facilities within the right of way as dimensioned. There are mutual responsibilities to certain collateral uses within that right of way.
Then who owns the right of ways, including the dedicated streets, parkways and sidewalks in a housing tract, the public or the individual private property owner? Why do all Municipalities repave the streets in this dedication, if I own this property? Why is it a public street, not a private street, of its my responsibility? Public streets, to include sidewalks and parkways are maintained through taxes in transportation funds to Municipalities. This is so confusing!
Edward Reading, post: 402570, member: 132 wrote: Wow.
What is the Tract Number of your subdivision?
Barry G, post: 402635, member: 12296 wrote: Is the ownership of the land in a housing tract, or fee, area to the soil under the road, parkway and sidewalk is the individual adjacent property owner, while the actual road itself, parkway and sidewalk is own by the Municipality, for public ingress and egress? That would explain why my property map dimensions go 6" before the public sidewalk. The Public Works Director states in a letter "Accordingly, you are the owner of the free title to the centerline of the portion of Street abutting you parcel, notwithstanding that the parcel depicted on the tract map does not show your ownership to extend beyond the front lot line, or that you do not pay property tax for that portion of your Street." California Code 831, written in 1872 states: 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. The Public Works Director states in writing that the map "does not show your ownership to extend beyond the front lot line".
The Public Works Director is correct.
The Tiffany Section I quoted was directed to MightyMoe. Tiffany is a National Real Property Treatise; it is simply indicating different States are different in some of these issues. In California, owners of subdivision lots are presumed to own to the center of the street despite the dimensions on the map. I'm telling you that you are going to lose on that issue if you keep pushing it.
Barry G, post: 402644, member: 12296 wrote: Then who owns the right of ways, including the dedicated streets, parkways and sidewalks in a housing tract, the public or the individual private property owner? Why do all Municipalities repave the streets in this dedication, if I own this property? Why is it a public street, not a private street, of its my responsibility? Public streets, to include sidewalks and parkways are maintained through taxes in transportation funds to Municipalities. This is so confusing!
It's only confusing if you try and apply logic to the law.
Miller & Starr is a California specific Real Estate Treatise written by one of the largest Real Property law firms here. I would consider it persuasive on California Real Property questions.
å¤ 8:65.Road, street or highway as property boundary, 3 Miller & Starr Cal. Real Est. å¤ 8:65 (4th ed.):
Boundary is presumed to the center of the road or street. In the absence of any qualifying terms contained in the deed, the designation in a conveyance of any physical object or monument as a boundary implies the middle or central point of the object or monument as the boundary of the land conveyed. 1 This general rule is made specifically applicable to roads, streets, and highways by statutes, 2 which establish a presumption when there is no contrary intent indicated in the deed itself. 3 It also applies to alleys. 4 Thus, a conveyance of land bordered by a public street or highway transfers title to the center of the street, subject to the public easement. 5
Description by lot and block in recorded map. The presumption also applies where no particular reference is made in the deed to the street itself, but the description specifies a particular lot or block by number and refers to a map that shows the land to be bounded by the street. Absent a different intent, it is presumed that the title extends to the center of the adjacent street shown on the map. 6 Therefore, when property is conveyed by a deed that references a recorded map, the grantee generally receives title to the center of the street that is the boundary of the property as shown on the map. 7
It is almost universal that Subdivision Maps in California don't show the lots extending into the street but the lots are bounded by the Street on at least one side so the title extends to the centerline of the street. The purpose of the side lot line dimensions is to show the distance from the back of the lot to the sideline of the street; those dimensions aren't intended to indicate ownership stops at the street. A dedication is not a conveyance of title, it simply creates an easement right in the public to use the street.
Here are the footnotes so you can look up the cases if you want to:
Footnotes
1 Freeman v. Bellegarde, 108 Cal. 179, 186ÛÒ188, 41 P. 289 (1895); Baker v. Ramirez, 190 Cal. App. 3d 1123, 1132, 235 Cal. Rptr.
857 (5th Dist. 1987); Jones v. Deeter, 152 Cal. App. 3d 798, 801ÛÒ802, 199 Cal. Rptr. 825 (2d Dist. 1984); Freeman v. Affiliated
å¤ 8:65.Road, street or highway as property boundary, 3 Cal. Real Est. å¤ 8:65 (4th ed.)
å© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3
Property Craftsmen, 266 Cal. App. 2d 723, 729, 72 Cal. Rptr. 357 (2d Dist. 1968); Wagner v. Chambers, 232 Cal. App. 2d 14, 19,
42 Cal. Rptr. 334 (2d Dist. 1965).
See Description with reference to highway as carrying title to center or side of highway, 49 A.L.R.2d 982.
2 Civ. Code, å¤ 831: ÛÏAn 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.Û
Civ. Code, å¤ 1112: ÛÏA 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.Û
See Relative rights and liabilities of abutting owners and public authorities in parkways in center of street, 81 A.L.R.2d 1436;
Description with reference to highway as carrying title to center or side of highway, 49 A.L.R.2d 982; Conveyance of land as bounded
by road, street, or other way as giving grantee rights in or to such way, 46 A.L.R.2d 461.
3 Civ. Code, å¤ 1112.
4 Besneatte v. Gourdin, 16 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1281, 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 82 (4th Dist. 1993).
5 Civ. Code, å¤å¤ 831, 1112; Code Civ. Proc., å¤ 2077, subd. (4).
Neff v. Ernst, 48 Cal. 2d 628, 635, 311 P.2d 849 (1957); Besneatte v. Gourdin, 16 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1281, 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 82
(4th Dist. 1993); Jones v. Deeter, 152 Cal. App. 3d 798, 801ÛÒ802, 199 Cal. Rptr. 825 (2d Dist. 1984); Safwenberg v. Marquez, 50
Cal. App. 3d 301, 306ÛÒ308, 123 Cal. Rptr. 405 (2d Dist. 1975); Freeman v. Affiliated Property Craftsmen, 266 Cal. App. 2d 723,
729ÛÒ731, 72 Cal. Rptr. 357 (2d Dist. 1968) (property bordered by railroad right of way); Loma Vista Inv., Inc. v. Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Los Angeles, 158 Cal. App. 2d 58, 62ÛÒ63, 322 P.2d 35 (2d Dist. 1958); Pinsky v. Sloat, 130 Cal. App. 2d 579, 582ÛÒ
587, 279 P.2d 584 (2d Dist. 1955).
See å¤ 15:80 (abandonment of public street or highway).
6 Safwenberg v. Marquez, 50 Cal. App. 3d 301, 309, 123 Cal. Rptr. 405 (2d Dist. 1975); Hixson v. Jones, 253 Cal. App. 2d 860, 866,
61 Cal. Rptr. 883 (1st Dist. 1967); Murray v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 250 Cal. App. 2d 248, 253, 58 Cal. Rptr. 273 (2d Dist. 1967);
City of Redlands v. Nickerson, 188 Cal. App. 2d 118, 125ÛÒ126, 10 Cal. Rptr. 431 (4th Dist. 1961).
See also Neff v. Ernst, 48 Cal. 2d 628, 635, 311 P.2d 849 (1957); Allan v. City and County of San Francisco, 7 Cal. 2d 642, 644ÛÒ
646, 61 P.2d 1175 (1936); Gramer v. City of Sacramento, 2 Cal. 2d 432, 438, 41 P.2d 543 (1935).
7 Neff v. Ernst, 48 Cal. 2d 628, 635, 311 P.2d 849 (1957); Safwenberg v. Marquez, 50 Cal. App. 3d 301, 309, 123 Cal. Rptr. 405
(2d Dist. 1975); Hixson v. Jones, 253 Cal. App. 2d 860, 863, 61 Cal. Rptr. 883 (1st Dist. 1967); Murray v. Title Ins. & Trust Co.,
250 Cal. App. 2d 248, 254, 58 Cal. Rptr. 273 (2d Dist. 1967); City of Redlands v. Nickerson, 188 Cal. App. 2d 118, 125ÛÒ126, 10
Cal. Rptr. 431 (4th Dist. 1961).
James Fleming, post: 402653, member: 136 wrote: It's only confusing if you try and apply logic to the law.
This is spot on. Law is quite complex, its not always rational and logical. A laymen would assume that public property is maintained by the government, private property is maintained by the individual. The purpose of government is to maintain public property, it receives from tax dollars. Private property is cared for by a private citizen, not the public. My house and car ( private ownership) is my responsibility, not the public. The Public uses the roads to drive to and from, uses the sidewalks for the same purposes. When I use it, ie water, gas, electric, food for my own benefit, I pay for it. When the public uses it, ie roads, sidewalks, schools, libraries, parks, WE pay for it in property taxes. Governments cant collect tax dollars for this repair, take it from my right pocket, then when its out of repair, charge me again for the same repair, stealing out of my left pockets. Im paying taxes for public property maintenance, that we all are entitled to use.
Barry G, post: 402644, member: 12296 wrote: Then who owns the right of ways, including the dedicated streets, parkways and sidewalks in a housing tract, the public or the individual private property owner? Why do all Municipalities repave the streets in this dedication, if I own this property? Why is it a public street, not a private street, of its my responsibility? Public streets, to include sidewalks and parkways are maintained through taxes in transportation funds to Municipalities. This is so confusing!
Yours and the other lots in your subdivision were created simultaneously. Underlying ownership goes from each lot to centerline of dedicated streets along each frontage. There are public utilities easements shown on your map as well. You own to the dimensioned limits, subject to the rights of public utilities authorized by franchise agreement to utilize these PUEs. The right of way, dedicated for public use, includes transportation, storm water collection, underground and overhead utilities, mailboxes, street signs, lighting, landscaping and the like. There are various funding sources for each of these, and there are defined obligations for adjacent landowners as well. Don't lump the coexisting uses into a single category.
Dave Karoly, post: 402656, member: 94 wrote: Miller & Starr is a California specific Real Estate Treatise written by one of the largest Real Property law firms here. I would consider it persuasive on California Real Property questions.
å¤ 8:65.Road, street or highway as property boundary, 3 Miller & Starr Cal. Real Est. å¤ 8:65 (4th ed.):
Boundary is presumed to the center of the road or street. In the absence of any qualifying terms contained in the deed, the designation in a conveyance of any physical object or monument as a boundary implies the middle or central point of the object or monument as the boundary of the land conveyed. 1 This general rule is made specifically applicable to roads, streets, and highways by statutes, 2 which establish a presumption when there is no contrary intent indicated in the deed itself. 3 It also applies to alleys. 4 Thus, a conveyance of land bordered by a public street or highway transfers title to the center of the street, subject to the public easement. 5
Description by lot and block in recorded map. The presumption also applies where no particular reference is made in the deed to the street itself, but the description specifies a particular lot or block by number and refers to a map that shows the land to be bounded by the street. Absent a different intent, it is presumed that the title extends to the center of the adjacent street shown on the map. 6 Therefore, when property is conveyed by a deed that references a recorded map, the grantee generally receives title to the center of the street that is the boundary of the property as shown on the map. 7It is almost universal that Subdivision Maps in California don't show the lots extending into the street but the lots are bounded by the Street on at least one side so the title extends to the centerline of the street. The purpose of the side lot line dimensions is to show the distance from the back of the lot to the sideline of the street; those dimensions aren't intended to indicate ownership stops at the street. A dedication is not a conveyance of title, it simply creates an easement right in the public to use the street.
Here are the footnotes so you can look up the cases if you want to:
Footnotes
1 Freeman v. Bellegarde, 108 Cal. 179, 186ÛÒ188, 41 P. 289 (1895); Baker v. Ramirez, 190 Cal. App. 3d 1123, 1132, 235 Cal. Rptr.
857 (5th Dist. 1987); Jones v. Deeter, 152 Cal. App. 3d 798, 801ÛÒ802, 199 Cal. Rptr. 825 (2d Dist. 1984); Freeman v. Affiliated
å¤ 8:65.Road, street or highway as property boundary, 3 Cal. Real Est. å¤ 8:65 (4th ed.)
å© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3
Property Craftsmen, 266 Cal. App. 2d 723, 729, 72 Cal. Rptr. 357 (2d Dist. 1968); Wagner v. Chambers, 232 Cal. App. 2d 14, 19,
42 Cal. Rptr. 334 (2d Dist. 1965).
See Description with reference to highway as carrying title to center or side of highway, 49 A.L.R.2d 982.
2 Civ. Code, å¤ 831: ÛÏAn 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.Û
Civ. Code, å¤ 1112: ÛÏA 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.Û
See Relative rights and liabilities of abutting owners and public authorities in parkways in center of street, 81 A.L.R.2d 1436;
Description with reference to highway as carrying title to center or side of highway, 49 A.L.R.2d 982; Conveyance of land as bounded
by road, street, or other way as giving grantee rights in or to such way, 46 A.L.R.2d 461.
3 Civ. Code, å¤ 1112.
4 Besneatte v. Gourdin, 16 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1281, 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 82 (4th Dist. 1993).
5 Civ. Code, å¤å¤ 831, 1112; Code Civ. Proc., å¤ 2077, subd. (4).
Neff v. Ernst, 48 Cal. 2d 628, 635, 311 P.2d 849 (1957); Besneatte v. Gourdin, 16 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1281, 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 82
(4th Dist. 1993); Jones v. Deeter, 152 Cal. App. 3d 798, 801ÛÒ802, 199 Cal. Rptr. 825 (2d Dist. 1984); Safwenberg v. Marquez, 50
Cal. App. 3d 301, 306ÛÒ308, 123 Cal. Rptr. 405 (2d Dist. 1975); Freeman v. Affiliated Property Craftsmen, 266 Cal. App. 2d 723,
729ÛÒ731, 72 Cal. Rptr. 357 (2d Dist. 1968) (property bordered by railroad right of way); Loma Vista Inv., Inc. v. Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Los Angeles, 158 Cal. App. 2d 58, 62ÛÒ63, 322 P.2d 35 (2d Dist. 1958); Pinsky v. Sloat, 130 Cal. App. 2d 579, 582ÛÒ
587, 279 P.2d 584 (2d Dist. 1955).
See å¤ 15:80 (abandonment of public street or highway).
6 Safwenberg v. Marquez, 50 Cal. App. 3d 301, 309, 123 Cal. Rptr. 405 (2d Dist. 1975); Hixson v. Jones, 253 Cal. App. 2d 860, 866,
61 Cal. Rptr. 883 (1st Dist. 1967); Murray v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 250 Cal. App. 2d 248, 253, 58 Cal. Rptr. 273 (2d Dist. 1967);
City of Redlands v. Nickerson, 188 Cal. App. 2d 118, 125ÛÒ126, 10 Cal. Rptr. 431 (4th Dist. 1961).
See also Neff v. Ernst, 48 Cal. 2d 628, 635, 311 P.2d 849 (1957); Allan v. City and County of San Francisco, 7 Cal. 2d 642, 644ÛÒ
646, 61 P.2d 1175 (1936); Gramer v. City of Sacramento, 2 Cal. 2d 432, 438, 41 P.2d 543 (1935).
7 Neff v. Ernst, 48 Cal. 2d 628, 635, 311 P.2d 849 (1957); Safwenberg v. Marquez, 50 Cal. App. 3d 301, 309, 123 Cal. Rptr. 405
(2d Dist. 1975); Hixson v. Jones, 253 Cal. App. 2d 860, 863, 61 Cal. Rptr. 883 (1st Dist. 1967); Murray v. Title Ins. & Trust Co.,
250 Cal. App. 2d 248, 254, 58 Cal. Rptr. 273 (2d Dist. 1967); City of Redlands v. Nickerson, 188 Cal. App. 2d 118, 125ÛÒ126, 10
Cal. Rptr. 431 (4th Dist. 1961).
Barry G, post: 402642, member: 12296 wrote: So property dimensions dont define property?
Correct!
roger_LS, post: 402634, member: 11550 wrote: After reading some of this thread, I am still unclear about this concept of ownership going to the middle of the street. When, in a semi-modern subdivision, property lines are drawn to the edge of the right of way and the City accepts the dedication, when does this ever come into effect except when the road may happen to be abandoned? If ownership is a "bundle of rights", what rights are being retained other than in the unlikely situation, in most cases, where the street is abandoned?
Roger, the use of the right-of-way corridor is limited to public right of way or right of passage. The city or public agency cannot decide to rope it off and sell it to someone else (they could if it was fee simple, but it is dedicated with a very specific usage). Whenever a transfer is limited to certain usage it becomes an easement. In this case it is an easement for the public to travel on. If it ever ceases to be used as a public right-of-way, it would revert back to the underlying owner.
It generally doesn't revert back to the original landowner as he would have no use of it. The presumption is that it goes back to the adjacent property owner. (read some of Karoly's posts on the subject. He seems to reference case law)
One exception would be if a specific fee title grant was made. Caltrans obtains a fee title typically when they acquire land for highways now. The language they use is very specific.
Another exception to the ownership of the right of way 1/2 width occurs, when the subdivision creates a right of way along the exterior boundary of the subdivision. In that case, the adjoining lots to the roadway along the exterior boundary would obtain the fee title to the entire width of the right of way.
Warren Smith, post: 402659, member: 9900 wrote: Yours and the other lots in your subdivision were created simultaneously. Underlying ownership goes from each lot to centerline of dedicated streets along each frontage. There are public utilities easements shown on your map as well. You own to the dimensioned limits, subject to the rights of public utilities authorized by franchise agreement to utilize these PUEs. The right of way, dedicated for public use, includes transportation, storm water collection, underground and overhead utilities, mailboxes, street signs, lighting, landscaping and the like. There are various funding sources for each of these, and there are defined obligations for adjacent landowners as well. Don't lump the coexisting uses into a single category.
.
Are you saying that I individually own 1/2 of the street, own the parkway and own the sidewalk, even though my property map does not indicate it? Do I own the land under and the actual asphalt street, the parkway with trees and the public cement sidewalk, lifted by the parkway tree roots. If this is so, its private property, I have control over private property, not public property. I dont need a permit from any Municipality for removing a parkway tree or taking out a sidewalk, its my property I own. So when by Ordinance, the government states that it owns the parkway trees is not valid, I own it, correct. SHC 22060 state that the Board is responsible to maintain the parkway trees, that is also incorrect. The state can require the Municipality to maintain these trees, the Counties can pass this responsibility on to the adjacent property owners, correct. In Jones vs Deeter, 1984, the Judge stated that the Municipality is responsible to maintain the public parkway trees along with the root damage to the sidewalks, not the adjacent property owner. This is also incorrect, since the parkway trees, I own, since I own out to the centerline of the dedicated streets. This judge also did not pass liability to adjacent property owner for injuries on the public sidewalk. This must be an error, since the public sidewalk in front of an adjacent properties home is also owned by the adjacent property owner, he must be responsible to maintain his own property, based on 5600-5630.. Same with Willits vs LA 2010, where a Judge requires the Municipality to maintain the public rights of ways in housing tracts, to include sidewalks and parkway trees in front of adjacent property owners home. This Federal Judge also made a mistake, since an adjacent property owners owns out to the middle of the street. So state and federal judges are all making mistakes in their rulings? If the adjacent property owners own out to the center line to the street, then no dedication of property needs to be signed by the Municipality. We own the street, we are responsible to maintain. There is not need for us to pay gas taxes for transportation budgets, no need for government to do anythings, its not responsible for public roads, streets, sidewalks and parkways.
LA Stevens, post: 402667, member: 2391 wrote: One exception would be if a specific fee title grant was made. Caltrans obtains a fee title typically when they acquire land for highways now. The language they use is very specific.
Another exception to the ownership of the right of way 1/2 width occurs, when the subdivision creates a right of way along the exterior boundary of the subdivision. In that case, the adjoining lots to the roadway along the exterior boundary would obtain the fee title to the entire width of the right of way.
When our State obtains property they obtain it fee simple. If you write a legal description for acquisition and have verbiage such as "for right of way purposes" it can be construed to be an easement. Our deeds in Colorado are careful to not use the term right of way. The use of the term right of way for fee simple corridors is more a slang or variant for the real definition of the term and using the term right of way in a deed could cause problems. (Just my two cents)
Barry G, post: 402642, member: 12296 wrote: You and I agree Roger. Director of Public Works writes me a letter stating "Accordingly, you are the owner of the fee title to the centerline of the portion of your street abutting your parcel, notwithstanding that the parcel on the tract map does not show your ownership to extend beyond the front lot line, or that you do not pay property tax for that portion of your street." Why would I not pay property tax if I own the fee title? So property dimensions dont define property? I own a house and a car, have a deed that defines my ownership. I dont have deed for a street or sidewalk or parkway, its public property, not private property. The Public pays taxes for public property maintenance, not private property.
I don't know that I agree, I'm not taking a position here as I am no expert on the matter, just trying to learn. Thank you all for the wealth of info in this thread!
Barry G, post: 402668, member: 12296 wrote: I dont need a permit from any Municipality for removing a parkway tree or taking out a sidewalk, its my property I own.
As Mr. Karoly stated "A dedication is not a conveyance of title, it simply creates an easement right in the public to use the street." Easements have dominant and subservient tenants. The owner of the land is the subservient tenant as he is the one who has surrendered certain rights to the holder of the easement. You can no more remove the sidewalk and street trees from the property you "own" in the street right-of-way than you can remove a gas line running through a utility easement on your property.
Dave Karoly, post: 402656, member: 94 wrote: Miller & Starr is a California specific Real Estate Treatise written by one of the largest Real Property law firms here. I would consider it persuasive on California Real Property questions.
å¤ 8:65.Road, street or highway as property boundary, 3 Miller & Starr Cal. Real Est. å¤ 8:65 (4th ed.):
Boundary is presumed to the center of the road or street. In the absence of any qualifying terms contained in the deed, the designation in a conveyance of any physical object or monument as a boundary implies the middle or central point of the object or monument as the boundary of the land conveyed. 1 This general rule is made specifically applicable to roads, streets, and highways by statutes, 2 which establish a presumption when there is no contrary intent indicated in the deed itself. 3 It also applies to alleys. 4 Thus, a conveyance of land bordered by a public street or highway transfers title to the center of the street, subject to the public easement. 5
Description by lot and block in recorded map. The presumption also applies where no particular reference is made in the deed to the street itself, but the description specifies a particular lot or block by number and refers to a map that shows the land to be bounded by the street. Absent a different intent, it is presumed that the title extends to the center of the adjacent street shown on the map. 6 Therefore, when property is conveyed by a deed that references a recorded map, the grantee generally receives title to the center of the street that is the boundary of the property as shown on the map. 7It is almost universal that Subdivision Maps in California don't show the lots extending into the street but the lots are bounded by the Street on at least one side so the title extends to the centerline of the street. The purpose of the side lot line dimensions is to show the distance from the back of the lot to the sideline of the street; those dimensions aren't intended to indicate ownership stops at the street. A dedication is not a conveyance of title, it simply creates an easement right in the public to use the street.
Here are the footnotes so you can look up the cases if you want to:
Footnotes
1 Freeman v. Bellegarde, 108 Cal. 179, 186ÛÒ188, 41 P. 289 (1895); Baker v. Ramirez, 190 Cal. App. 3d 1123, 1132, 235 Cal. Rptr.
857 (5th Dist. 1987); Jones v. Deeter, 152 Cal. App. 3d 798, 801ÛÒ802, 199 Cal. Rptr. 825 (2d Dist. 1984); Freeman v. Affiliated
å¤ 8:65.Road, street or highway as property boundary, 3 Cal. Real Est. å¤ 8:65 (4th ed.)
å© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3
Property Craftsmen, 266 Cal. App. 2d 723, 729, 72 Cal. Rptr. 357 (2d Dist. 1968); Wagner v. Chambers, 232 Cal. App. 2d 14, 19,
42 Cal. Rptr. 334 (2d Dist. 1965).
See Description with reference to highway as carrying title to center or side of highway, 49 A.L.R.2d 982.
2 Civ. Code, å¤ 831: ÛÏAn 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.Û
Civ. Code, å¤ 1112: ÛÏA 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.Û
See Relative rights and liabilities of abutting owners and public authorities in parkways in center of street, 81 A.L.R.2d 1436;
Description with reference to highway as carrying title to center or side of highway, 49 A.L.R.2d 982; Conveyance of land as bounded
by road, street, or other way as giving grantee rights in or to such way, 46 A.L.R.2d 461.
3 Civ. Code, å¤ 1112.
4 Besneatte v. Gourdin, 16 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1281, 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 82 (4th Dist. 1993).
5 Civ. Code, å¤å¤ 831, 1112; Code Civ. Proc., å¤ 2077, subd. (4).
Neff v. Ernst, 48 Cal. 2d 628, 635, 311 P.2d 849 (1957); Besneatte v. Gourdin, 16 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1281, 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 82
(4th Dist. 1993); Jones v. Deeter, 152 Cal. App. 3d 798, 801ÛÒ802, 199 Cal. Rptr. 825 (2d Dist. 1984); Safwenberg v. Marquez, 50
Cal. App. 3d 301, 306ÛÒ308, 123 Cal. Rptr. 405 (2d Dist. 1975); Freeman v. Affiliated Property Craftsmen, 266 Cal. App. 2d 723,
729ÛÒ731, 72 Cal. Rptr. 357 (2d Dist. 1968) (property bordered by railroad right of way); Loma Vista Inv., Inc. v. Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Los Angeles, 158 Cal. App. 2d 58, 62ÛÒ63, 322 P.2d 35 (2d Dist. 1958); Pinsky v. Sloat, 130 Cal. App. 2d 579, 582ÛÒ
587, 279 P.2d 584 (2d Dist. 1955).
See å¤ 15:80 (abandonment of public street or highway).
6 Safwenberg v. Marquez, 50 Cal. App. 3d 301, 309, 123 Cal. Rptr. 405 (2d Dist. 1975); Hixson v. Jones, 253 Cal. App. 2d 860, 866,
61 Cal. Rptr. 883 (1st Dist. 1967); Murray v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 250 Cal. App. 2d 248, 253, 58 Cal. Rptr. 273 (2d Dist. 1967);
City of Redlands v. Nickerson, 188 Cal. App. 2d 118, 125ÛÒ126, 10 Cal. Rptr. 431 (4th Dist. 1961).
See also Neff v. Ernst, 48 Cal. 2d 628, 635, 311 P.2d 849 (1957); Allan v. City and County of San Francisco, 7 Cal. 2d 642, 644ÛÒ
646, 61 P.2d 1175 (1936); Gramer v. City of Sacramento, 2 Cal. 2d 432, 438, 41 P.2d 543 (1935).
7 Neff v. Ernst, 48 Cal. 2d 628, 635, 311 P.2d 849 (1957); Safwenberg v. Marquez, 50 Cal. App. 3d 301, 309, 123 Cal. Rptr. 405
(2d Dist. 1975); Hixson v. Jones, 253 Cal. App. 2d 860, 863, 61 Cal. Rptr. 883 (1st Dist. 1967); Murray v. Title Ins. & Trust Co.,
250 Cal. App. 2d 248, 254, 58 Cal. Rptr. 273 (2d Dist. 1967); City of Redlands v. Nickerson, 188 Cal. App. 2d 118, 125ÛÒ126, 10
Cal. Rptr. 431 (4th Dist. 1961).
Thank you. Please explain this so I can understand: Acceptance of Subdivision Map. Responsibility and liability for maintaining the subdivision in proper condition remained with defendant subdivider until such streets were accepted by County Board of Supervisors as country roads; nothing in statues imposes obligation on county to accept, improve, maintain or exercise any control over streets show on subdivision map until county, in this discretion, by action of its board of supervisors, determines to accept such streets as part of county road system. County of Kern v Edgemont Development Corp. (1963, 5th Dist) 222 Cal App 2d 874, 35, Cal Rprt 629.
Miller and Starr "After the roads and streets have been accepted for dedication and formally accepted as part of the public road system, the city or county assumes the affirmative duty of maintenance. Also, if it fails to property maintain the dedicate property, the city or county will be liable for any injuries incurred as a proximate result of a defective condition. So after the dedication of property, any Municipality has the State authority to reassign this own duty, responsibility and liability on roads, streets, sidewalks and parkways to an adjacent property owner? The courts have not ruled this way, (Williams vs Foster, Shaefer vs Lenahan, Jones vs Deeter, Willits vs City of LA), expecially on liability on the out of repair sidewalks in housing tracts. Thanks for your help.
I think FrancisH has been cloned!!!
Barry G, post: 402668, member: 12296 wrote: So state and federal judges are all making mistakes in their rulings?
Reductio ad absurdum. Or, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."
LA Stevens, post: 402667, member: 2391 wrote: One exception would be if a specific fee title grant was made. Caltrans obtains a fee title typically when they acquire land for highways now. The language they use is very specific.
Another exception to the ownership of the right of way 1/2 width occurs, when the subdivision creates a right of way along the exterior boundary of the subdivision. In that case, the adjoining lots to the roadway along the exterior boundary would obtain the fee title to the entire width of the right of way.
Edit of the second paragraph.
Another exception to the ownership of the right of way 1/2 width occurs, when the subdivision creates a right of way along the exterior boundary of the subdivision. In that case, the adjoining lots to the right of way that is along the exterior boundary would obtain the underlying fee title to the entire width of the right of way when purchasing a lot.
