Street Abandonement affect on Alley

GWinglovitz · Post by **GWinglovitz** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 10:04 am

I have a situation where the SW'ly 10 feet of a street was Vacated and Abondoned by a county resolution in 1975. The description excludes "any portion ... in the prolongations of the intersecting streets." Then in 1979 the alley in the middle of the block was abandoned by the county. This alley is perpendicular to the street that was partially vacated.

As I see it the 10 foot portion of the street that was vacated is continuos through the alley and the alley is now also completely abandoned. Yet the assessor's map shows a 10' x 20' area where the street and the alley meet as being still part of the street and or alley.

I think that this area has been vacated and abandoned and should not show on the assessor's map as being part of the public street and/or alley.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

LS_8750 · Post by **LS_8750** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:20 pm

to "abandon" requires and act of the Board of Supervisors, where then title may revert back to the adjoiners. This may or may not have actually happened in your case?

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:49 pm

IMO when the 10 feet was abandoned the alley then elongated to the new r/w line.
Then when the alley was abandoned the abandonment includes the add'l 10ft.

I am sure if someone mentions to the agency that that 10x20 feet could become a liability if someone gets hurt in that location they will change the accessors map and maybe issue a new abandonment deed.

I had a case where someone stepped into a deep pothole during a rainstorm and broke their ankle in a alley. The city said the alley was abandoned but a full day of research no one at the City or County or title company could produce documents to that effect. Shortly thereafter the City accepted liability. I would imagine they properly abandoned it later on.

Peter Ehlert · Post by **Peter Ehlert** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:49 pm

I understand the point of the Assessor, there is a valid argument... Why fight it, their cautious stance will probably prevail.
Just ask the County to vacate that remnant.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:28 am

There is a difference between vacated and abandoned. Vacated means that they are not using it or intending to use it, but not that they are relinquishing title. Abandonment relinquishes title. So if the street was abandoned and the alley extended to the new RW, and then the Alley merely vacated, then the alley RW still exists out to the current street RW.

Jim Frame · Post by **Jim Frame** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 6:38 am

"There is a difference between vacated and abandoned."

The cases I've encountered use these terms interchangeably. Can anyone provide an authoritative reference for the distinction?

Thanks.

.

LS_8750 · Post by **LS_8750** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:26 am

You can start at Government Code 7050. The point is the relenquishing of title by act of the Board of Supervisors or the City Council. Stopping usage of a right of way or whatever is different than abandonment.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:17 am

I've been trying to locate the document I prepared by which the County had vacated their roadway use of a portion of RW but not abandoned their RW easement.

It seems pretty clear from the text of the law posted that my recollection/interpretation was incorrect. We must have done some sort of partial vacation. I'll keep looking.

GWinglovitz · Post by **GWinglovitz** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:06 pm

To clarify my first post, both documents use the word "abandon". The question is wether the 10' x 20' portion where the two formerly intersected was ever abandoned. The County Assessor has said that this portion was never abandoned. They argue that when the 10' portion of the street was abandoned the alley was still in existence and the resolution that later abandoned the alley described the alley only as "all alleys (20-feet wide) within Block 29, .... , as shown on map...". They said that there should have been some reference in the alley abandonement that stated it also included the 10 portion formerly part of X street, a metes and bounds, or a statement that the alley out to 30' from the CL of X street was included.

I think that the intent was obviously to abandon the portion in question, but it is wiser to agree with the assessor for now and if needed apply to the City to vacate said portion.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:53 pm

That seems nitpicky to me. There is room to interpret intent, and the intent was probably that when the alley within the block was abandoned, that it be abandoned from the street at one end to the street at the other end of the block, without leaving useless bits along the way.

I easily see how it got overlooked in the precise wording. Is the local government now averse to cleaning this up? It will probably take a Board Resolution to correct the description, but since there is no legitimate public use for a 10 x 20 bit of land separated from any other RW, it should be obvious that it is simply a matter of clarifying the Board's original intent by correcting the description. Unless of course someone wants to obstruct what you're doing to make a political point by standing on minutae.

bteas@cox. · Post by **bteas@cox.** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:27 pm

As I see it as the street abandonment intended to exclude the intersection and the assessor is correct in assuming that the excluded area was not vacated by subsequent Alley vacation.

The adjacent owers should be motivated to initiate a separate right of way action to clean up the ambiguity.

Good luck

land butcher · Post by **land butcher** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:05 am

This is typical of our nit-picky society today.
Everyone on here knows what the intent was, just some inexperienced person wrote a abandonment deed and no one caught the undotted i.

I'm not saying we should not fix it, it's just in a less litigious society we would not have to.