Community Forums

Share:

reversionary rights  

Page 1 / 2

MightyMoe
Posts: 6221
Member
(@mightymoe)
5,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

Does anyone know of a precedent setting case where a reversionary right was claimed to the center of a partially vacated street. I have this conflict going on where one landowner to the west of a north-south 75' street which had the 35 west feet vacated in 1950 now wants twenty feet of the remaining 40' when the remainder of the street is vacated. My position is he only gets 2.5'. Although, I can find many cases dealing with vacations, I can't find any for this situation.

8 Replies
Mike Berry
Posts: 1142
Member
(@mike-berry)
1,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

Here is a US Supreme Court ruling:

"It is a familiar principle of... law that a grant of land bordering on a road or river, carries title to the center of the river or road, unless the terms or circumstances of the grant indicate a limitation of its extent by the exterior lines."
-Banks v. Ogden 69 U.S. 57 (1864)

The "unless the terms or circumstances" caveat is explained in the attached pdf. If ALL the 75 feet of dedicated RW  came from the parent property of the west landowner, and said parent property owners did not own the land east of the RW at the time of the dedication, then they (current landowner on the west) could have a valid claim to vacated RW past the centerline. If not, it is an illegal taking of another's land without compensation which is repugnant to the constitutions of both the US and your state.

 

Reply
1 Reply
MightyMoe
Member
(@mightymoe)
Joined: 9 years ago

5,000+ posts
Posts: 6221

@mike-berry

Thanks!!!

I'm in an endless email chain trying to explain this concept, state statutes are not a big help cause they are vague.

Reply
Mike Berry
Posts: 1142
Member
(@mike-berry)
1,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago
Posted by: @mightymoe

state statutes are not a big help cause they are vague.

I hope the info helps. Our state has fairly clear laws regarding the vesting of vacated public R/W along with a lot of good case law. A possible source of information for you might be the local Couny Assessor. Here abouts they are well versed in road vacation  laws since they are charged with attaching the vacated lands to the abutting owners so it can get taxed. It’s all about the money!

Reply
1 Reply
MightyMoe
Member
(@mightymoe)
Joined: 9 years ago

5,000+ posts
Posts: 6221

@mike-berry

Court cases are clear (to me) on this issue. The local government bodies are a mess with respect to vacations, the focus seems to be on the centerline, the idea that the centerline shifts if a strip is vacated. 

It is a struggle to say the least.

Reply
Mike Berry
Posts: 1142
Member
(@mike-berry)
1,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago
Posted by: @mightymoe

It is a struggle to say the least.

I hear you, I've had the same futile discussions with cities, planners, other surveyors, et cetera.

I just found out that my pdf explanation is valid in Oregon, but not necessarily in other states. I found this case in Montana where the state supreme court apparently split the RW at the centerline on a road along the boundary of a subdivision which was dedicated in its entirety in said subdivision:

Herried v. Hauck 839 P. 2d 571

 

 

Reply
Dave Karoly
Posts: 10413
Member
(@dave-karoly)
10,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

59 BOUNDARIES 72
59I Description 25
59 12 Waters and Water Courses 10
59 13 In general. 9

17. Glover v. Giraldo
Supreme Court of Wyoming. January 22, 1992 824 P.2d 552
Headnote: Where legal description is specific in its language, naming bank of stream as boundary of land conveyed, grantee's
rights will not extend beyond such specified boundary.
2 Cases that cite this legal issue
Document Summary: Action was brought to quiet title or, in alternative, to establish title by adverse
possession. The District Court, Natrona County, Dan Spangler, J., granted summary judgment for defendants
and plaintiffs appealed. The Supreme Court, Golden, J., held that: (1) deed conveying tract of land between
boundary of subdivision and thence “along the left bank of said river” was intended to limit grant to shoreline
or bank of river and not to extend grant to thread of river, and (2) plaintiffs were entitled to consideration of
alternative claim of title by adverse possession. Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
18. Glover v. Giraldo
Supreme Court of Wyoming. January 22, 1992 824 P.2d 552
Headnote: Deed describing conveyance as including land between boundary line of subdivision and thence “along the left
bank” of river conveyed only to bank of river and did not pass title to bed of stream.
2 Cases that cite this legal issue
Document Summary: Action was brought to quiet title or, in alternative, to establish title by adverse
possession. The District Court, Natrona County, Dan Spangler, J., granted summary judgment for defendants
and plaintiffs appealed. The Supreme Court, Golden, J., held that: (1) deed conveying tract of land between
boundary of subdivision and thence “along the left bank of said river” was intended to limit grant to shoreline
or bank of river and not to extend grant to thread of river, and (2) plaintiffs were entitled to consideration of
alternative claim of title by adverse possession. Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.

Reply
1 Reply
Dave Karoly
Member
(@dave-karoly)
Joined: 9 years ago

10,000+ posts
Posts: 10413

Oops wrong post, just noticed that.

Reply
Page 1 / 2
Default
:)
:d
:wink:
:mrgreen:
:neutral:
:twisted:
:arrow:
:shock:
:???:
:cool:
:evil:
:oops:
:razz:
:roll:
:cry:
:eek:
:lol:
:mad:
:sad:
:!:
:?:
:idea:
:hmm:
:beg:
:whew:
:chuckle:
:silly:
:envy:
:shutmouth: