Street Dedication by owner to city, who owns it?

[Washwo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? wa
If a land owner has a big piece of land, cuts it up, and creates a street, dedicates the street to the town for use as a public road, who actually owns it?

 

[justalayman]

First, you have to determine if the town accepts the dedication.


Then, if it is merely a dedication, it is likely the ownership is retained by the original landowner but if that is the case, it is likely he loses all rights to control the land just as if he had given title to the town.

So, he gets to pay property tax on the land that everybody gets to use as a public street.

 

[Washwo]

street Dedicaiton by owner to city, who owns it?

The adjacent landlowner (A) never paid taxes on it. It show up on the original plat 1880 years ago as part of their (A) plat. The streets were created by the original land owner and dedicated for public use in 1900.

It has remained unopened and used by the other side of the "street" land owners (B) who maintain it as a large garden. Landowner A lives 3000 miles away.

Who owns it? Could A or B try to "own it"?

 

[justalayman]

unless I am misunderstanding the situation, it would be as susceptible to adverse possession or prescriptive easement as any other property. Of course, the towns ROW would override and use by the owner if the decided to build the road.

adverse possession:

In Washington, the duration of such possession is seven (7) years. The person claiming title by adverse possession must pay taxes and assessments on real estate during the time of adverse possession. Washington Code §7.28.050-.090.

 

[Washwo]

street Dedication by owner to city, who owns it?

In Washington State, I believe it is 7 years if taxes were paid, and 10 if they were not to qualify. (RCW 7.28.070)

RCW 4.16.020 It sets the ten year time frame - everything else (and the also the 10 years) is in the case law. Every adverse possession case basically restates the adverse possession elements in Washington...they are well established and have not changed much for decades.

no taxes paid, Street never used. Back in 1880, when cows and goats roamed, no one needed a street. when it was carved up in 1900 and streets were named, is it an easement that A had with the city? So the city has merely an easement, and A's descendants never thought much about it until A's great- granddaughter found out and wanted it back!

B has had his garden there since 1889, well before the street was dedicated and has a very old barn that hangs over the line into the "street"!


Soooo WHO owns this street that was never used as a street? no one?

 

[justalayman]

Soooo WHO owns this street that was never used as a street? no one?

both. One by legal title, one by claim of right .



so, what is A's great granddaughter doing? While the adverse possession allows B to claim the land, the problem is; as it stands, the chain of title says A still owns it. Is she willing to spend money to try to reclaim it? Is B willing to defend his claim to it?

the thing that doesn't make sense is if no taxes have been paid, why hasn't the state foreclosed on it?

 

[Washwo]

street Dedication by owner to city, who owns it?

no taxes have been paid because it was a "street" dedication to the public from a century ago. We all assumed it "belonged" to the city.

Owner A wants to now claim it, pay the city for it and make B remove the garden and the old barn which is 100 years old (and quite a beauty!)..have his plat adjusted to reclaim the street as his private property like it was in 1880.

B was told that since it has been "city property" he could not adversely possess it cuz it was "owned" by the city. But since the the first "A" owner dedicated the street, in 1900, could B try to buy it from the city? or? How does that work? It would be a shame to lose this old barn that has been restored and is a showpiece for the neighborhood.

I hear differing opinions on this one.

 

[justalayman]

you need to clarify: on the land maps, in a title search, anywhere you want to look: who is listed as the owner of the land?



----------------------

B has had his garden there since 1889, well before the street was dedicated and has a very old barn that hangs over the line into the "street"!

so, B is in excess of 122 years old?

I presume you meant B and his successors in title.

 

[Washwo]

street Dedication by owner to city, who owns it?

By looking at him, he may well be..he's a bright blue eyed Swede who bought it and retired there a decade or more ago, and fixed up the falling down barn, and restored the immense gardens to a blooming showcase. (Yes that would be successors in title)

"A" has lived 3000 miles away for many years and has some local fellow maintain A's old estate, but not the "street" since B still gardens in it and uses the barn.

The youngish "A" is hoping to develop we think (since her new husband is a developer) and the old Swede "B" asked me if they can tear down his barn?

He's in his 80's. He maintains an old horse, buggy, chickens and a huge garden all on this "street". It's been a garden for at least 50 years, (according to the elder neighbors) and the barn predates the street dedication.

No one is listed as owners of this "street". No taxes were ever paid on it. On the parcel map it's just listed as blank space between lots.

I want to help this fellow. He hopes to will his place to our local land trust.

 

[justalayman]

On the parcel map it's just listed as blank space between lots.

Ok. that changes everything, a lot. Apparently I was not communicating with you very well and misunderstanding the situation.

In dedicating the land to the town, the owner removed it from any individuals lot. This is contrary to what I was speaking of. In many situations, a government is given a ROW (easement) upon land for which it is dedicated as for the purposes of a roadway. The owner of the land continues to retain title to the land but relinquishes all control over the property. As such, he is a servient tenant. He would still pay taxes on the land as title holder.

It appears that not only was there a dedication but a grant of the land to the town for use as a roadway.

So, this is what I see:

as public land, a person cannot claim adverse possession (as he was told).

Now, it needs to be researched how such granted land is dealt with when it is abandoned by the "owner" (the town).

I do not know how Washington treats such a situation specifically. I have seen it treated, in other states, several different ways.

1. the owner of the land at the time of the dedication was either gifted the land or given the opportunity to purchase the land


2. it was split between adjacent landowners, either as available for purchase or as a gift, depending on the specific situation.

3. it was simply available for purchase by anybody with the money.

4. it was granted or sold to certain entities for use for a specified purpose. As an example, this is from where some of the pedestrian pathways are created in my area.

None of the above are applicable unless the government entity is willing to abandon the property.
If the town is not willing to abandon the land, it's a moot point.

You seem to be comfortable with the RCW so I would suggest searching for anything that controls the disposal of government lands.


I had a strange idea. No idea if it is even remotely a possibility but figured I would toss it out anyway for you to research if you believe it might be.

If B occupied A's land prior to the dedication, I wonder if B would be able to argue AP based on the period of time he occupied it while it was private property. To continue that thought, if it is argued the dedication severed any right to a claim based on the time, can it be argued that the dedication did not stop the accrual of time but that it becoming government owned land and it's subsequent return to private ownership should be considered nothing more than a disability that prevented a claim while in the possession of the government. If so, if A does succeed in getting the land, it could allow for a claim of AP by B.

Like I said, no idea if it is remotely possible but may be worth a little research if B is willing to initiate an AP claim should A obtain title.

 

[Washwo]

We found that an application was submitted by "A" to have the city give up their "dedication" so "A" can buy the "street" a few weeks ago!

On the form is a place for signatures for 2/3s of the abutting property owners to sign, but they city waived that. There is also a place where it is required that a sign be erected on the spot with this application, but that has been waived too.

It appears as though "A" has had lots of fees to pay, and the application is in process. She has applied to have her lot line adjusted to incorporate the larger acreage.

The neighbors are stunned. No comment from "A", since one of the elder neighbors called her. She said to contact her attorney.

What can we do now? We don't have the heart to tell "B"...he's been delivering fresh free veggies to the neighbors...

 

[justalayman]

hjertesproget;2818414]
On the form is a place for signatures for 2/3s of the abutting property owners to sign, but they city waived that. There is also a place where it is required that a sign be erected on the spot with this application, but that has been waived too.

you need to investigate to determine if the city can waive those requirements. I suspect they could under only very limited circumstances, if at all.

It appears as though "A" has had lots of fees to pay, and the application is in process. She has applied to have her lot line adjusted to incorporate the larger acreage.

If you are going to fight this, I suggest you file a lis pendans against the land.

What can we do now? We don't have the heart to tell "B"...he's been delivering fresh free veggies to the neighbors...

research the legality of the waiving of the notice and approval requirements. I suspect you would have a legal basis to dispute those actions.

You might also look into what I spoke of before: the possibility of adverse possession for the time period prior to the dedication with treating the dedication (which during the possession was actually continued anyway) as a disability to being able to file a claim of AP.

 

[Washwo]

Good news!

We held a neighborhood meeting, including a visiting uncle who is a law professor. We taped it and sent a video to "A".

We read a document explaining the adverse possession law, and the codes, and that it would be funded by 16 of us, if we had to take it to court for AP.

The city attorney was there, and a city planner, who will move to keep the unopened street because it serves the public good. The barn will remain, and all of us cheered! It was explained to us that because "A" held the "fee simple" underneath the city dedication, the ownership was with "A" and she could simply buy it.

BUT because it was not actually OWNED by the city, "B" could sue for quiet title. "B" would win, and money would be made by two lawyers.

Once "A" understood that HER money would be spent to get to ZERO, and the city planner saw how much we benefit from the unopened street, barn, gardens and such, it was promised that this street will not be vacated. Since 2/3rds of the abutting neighbors were present, and willing to pay for AP case, it was a no brainer since signatures are required for "A" to be allowed to proceed. We signed the petition.

"A" has no legal right to do anything now, and "B" can go on feeding the neighborhood. Thanks for helping make our haven safe from aliens (for now!).

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Score 1 for the little guy!!!

 

[justalayman]

Good news!

We held a neighborhood meeting, including a visiting uncle who is a law professor. We taped it and sent a video to "A".

We read a document explaining the adverse possession law, and the codes, and that it would be funded by 16 of us, if we had to take it to court for AP.

The city attorney was there, and a city planner, who will move to keep the unopened street because it serves the public good. The barn will remain, and all of us cheered! It was explained to us that because "A" held the "fee simple" underneath the city dedication, the ownership was with "A" and she could simply buy it.

BUT because it was not actually OWNED by the city, "B" could sue for quiet title. "B" would win, and money would be made by two lawyers.

Once "A" understood that HER money would be spent to get to ZERO, and the city planner saw how much we benefit from the unopened street, barn, gardens and such, it was promised that this street will not be vacated. Since 2/3rds of the abutting neighbors were present, and willing to pay for AP case, it was a no brainer since signatures are required for "A" to be allowed to proceed. We signed the petition.

"A" has no legal right to do anything now, and "B" can go on feeding the neighborhood. Thanks for helping make our haven safe from aliens (for now!).

That is great to hear. While typically I am not a big fan of AP claims, there are some that really are just in their use. Congratulations and glad you stuck with this.