Easement or No Easement?

[Jake Sharp]

OK….need some help on this one.

Please review the attached Director’s Deed. The state conveyed a piece of land to a private party, roughly 20 feet wide, adjoining the 110 freeway in Carson. They do this by describing a portion of the underlying lot, bounded westerly by a line (the boundary of the freeway). The document goes on to EXCEPT and RESERVE rights of access.

Here’s the question: It seems clear to me that this document establishes the access denial to the freeway by the grantee (EXCEPTS ingress and egress). Does this document not ALSO reserve an easement to the State, over the portion of land granted (the private property)?

Keep reading…..how about the next paragraph where it states, “It is the purpose of the foregoing exception and reservation to provide that no easement of access shall attach or be appurtenant to the property….â€￾.

Does this reiterate the State's intent to exclude access rights to the freeway – OR- does this mean that there is no easement…..period.

I’m not drawing on my years of experience interpreting Director’s Deeds…..I’m interpreting the English language, without pre-concieved notions, and I believe that the State reserved an easement over the roughly 20 foot wide portion of land described. Many surveyors, wiser than me, have dissagreed. What does the forum say??

[dmi]

nope no easement The state is excepting and reserving the right of access across a described line. It specifically states NO EASEMENT is created.

[pls7809]

I agree with the disagreers. The "Also Excepting and Reserving..." paragraph is only referring to the described line.

... or what Dane said.

The rights of access are only the right of a property owner to cross his line onto public right of way...or an owner's right of access. By including these clauses Caltrans is blocking any owner adjoining the publicly owned freeway from just jumping across the line to enter the freeway. Of course the soundwalls and fences and guard rails assist as well.

[Scott Tikalsky]

Jake;

My interpretation of this document is the State purchased a piece of property per 47844 OR 181 prior to improvements to the highway. After the construction was complete, a portion of that property became excess land. That is what is being conveyed by this document. Caltrans want to make sure that someone is not going to put a dirveway cut onto the highway through that westerly line, so they reserve the access rights to themselves. It appears the next paragraph is just an explanation of the reservation. I would have to look at the 47844 OR 181 document to be sure, but by this document existing, I believe the State owns the remaining strip in fee, not as an easement.

This is just my guess with looking at this 1 document.