Who owns the street?

[Sunburned_Surveyor]

I got a question from a coworker that I wanted to post here. He's got an old subdivision map that shows a number of streets. Although widths are listed on the streets, nothing is said on the map about the ownership of the streets.

The map does have a couple of statements indicating that the streets were dedicated and accepted by the local City. The dedications do not clearly state if the ownership transferred in the streets was a fee or easement.

I did some poking around, and Brown's said the presumption is that fee title to streets is passed, but that local case law or statue controls.

Does anyone know if this issue is decided in California statute or case law? If so, would you be able to provide a reference for me?

I'm really interested in some hard references, not just opinion. (We've got plenty of opinions around my office already.) :]

If we can't come up with a hard reference here, I'll make a trip to the law library to see what I can find.

On a related note, does it matter if distances on lots are shown to the centerline or side line of the streets? (Now I am asking for your opinion.)

Thanks for the references and comments on the second issue I raised.

The Sunburned Surveyor
California PLS 8489

[Propst]

Earl v Dutour 181 Cal. 58 (1919) talks about how that relationship should be interpreted, e.g. if you sell half the lot, you sell the half exclusive of the street, even though the street is included.
That case is referenced in all six editions of BCLP: Chapter 13 of the 4th - 6th, footnote 1; chpt 7 of 2nd & 3rd; chpt 3 of 1st

[dmi]

It is based upon the terms of the grant. Unless there is operative language to convey "fee" in the dedication, then it is presumbed to be be an easement, when we are talking about dedications for roadway purposes.

This same question has been to posed to the AG in recent years by the county attorney for Santa Barbara. TRY this http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/04-809.pdf

[dmi]

see attachmnet

[Sunburned_Surveyor]

Thanks for the AG opinion. I should have remember that. It will provide a good list of cases I can research for a more difinite answer to the question.

Thank you for the other references as well.

The Sunburned Surveyor
California PLS 8489

[dmi]

I am not 100% on this but, I think we can rely on the AG's opinion as a basis for the current state of the law.

[E_Page]

AGOs are not binding upon the courts, but do tend to hold a great deal of influence. Relying on an AGO is not quite as solid as relying on court precedent, but it's generally a pretty reliable indicator of how a court would decide.

[Ben Lund]

Wattles's Writing Legal Descriptions Chapter 9 is pretty handy.

[dmi]

Ben, I would recommend the AG opinion over Wattles or some other textbook. The AG opinion will comprised of research that attempts to get at the current state of the law, statute and case law. Wattles and other's are fine for a historical perspective.

[E_Page]

I agree with Dane. A text book, even if written by a CA author, is written to be relevant to the nation as a whole. An AGO will be based upon CA law, is more specific, and more reliable for the CA surveyor.

[TTaylor]

CT Legislative Opinion on Fee vs. Easement

[Ben Lund]

Dane and Evan, I didn't say Wattles trumps AGOs, statute, or case law. Hopefully this goes without saying. I’m just suggesting other places to read and learn.

[dmi]

Very helpful info. When does matter....

Ben, I had second thoughts after I hit the post button, but they were not strong enough for me to take back my entire post.

Certainly a breath of reading on a subject is very useful. I would not want to discourage anyone from doing their own research. But if you have time only to read one thing, my recommendation would be to read the AG opinion. When I first got my hands on the AG opinion , I also reread Wattles.

It is a fine thing for surveyors to attempt to do their own legal research, but it is something one is going to do for its own sake, the enjoyment of the research. When it comes to an AG opinion, the AG has a staff that does nothing but research for AG opinions, they are expert at this and have all the resources at their fingertips.

My post was not meant to be critical of your suggestion. Some may not have known or remembered that Wattles covered the topic.

[marchenko]

Civil Code 831.

[Sunburned_Surveyor]

Thanks for all of the great references.

I've got a lot of reading to do. I really appreciate it. This forum is a great resource.

Maybe I'll try to put together an article for CalSurveyor on the subject when my reading and research is complete.

The Sunburned Surveyor
California PLS 8489

[E_Page]

Joe,

Yours is an odd case decided under, um, shall we say unusual circumsatnces.

But the point that centerline vs sideline is important to know is still valid.

[goodgps]

Sunny,

Your original post stated that the streets were Incorporated. If that is the case, then lots would be defined to the sideline. However, you also ask "if the distance of lots are shown to the centerline " This confuses me a bit.

Olde tyme maps were quite clear as to their intent. There may be statements on the map refering to whether or not the streets were accepted or rejected (by the public agency). Also, there may be notes on the map that indicate the area and dimensions of each lots and other particulars.
FURTHERMORE IF a Lot . . was say deeded out as a "half" PRIOR to the acceptance of a road the meaning may be more towards the "half" of the lot dimension . . . ie. 500' to a centerline = 250' half . . .one half includes the adjacent street. [this half also get it back if it is abandon]
ANOTHER strong scenerio is the HISTORICAL method of dividing "halves" or other portions of such lots. .
The Student {surveyor} must research the entire subdivision involved to determine the accepted historical method of lot division.

Court cases and Book references (opinions) are wonderful, however, Historical procedure is a great way to determine the "Intent Du Jour"

Best Wishes ???

"Good"