In August, 1946 a property in unincorporated territory of the county was subdivided and the "future alley" shown thereon was rejected "under the provisions of Section 11616" of the SMA.
There is a dedication note in the owner's statement.
The property is now within a city which would like to accept it.
Do they have any recourse as it stands?
Rejected dedication
-
Dave Lindell
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 9:17 pm
- Location: Rancho Mirage
-
Ian Wilson
- Posts: 1087
- Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 6:58 am
- Location: Bay Area
-
D Ryan
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 12:20 pm
- Location: Arcata, CA
Dave,
Check out the citation below. The opportunity for acceptance, and therefor the offer of dedication may have expired if these conditions were met.
CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
SECTION 771.010-771.020
771.010. If a proposal is heretofore or hereafter made to dedicate real property for public improvement, there is a conclusive presumption that the proposed dedication was not accepted if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) The proposal was made by filing a map only.
(b) No acceptance of the dedication was made and recorded within 25 years after the map was filed.
(c) The real property was not used for the purpose for which the dedication was proposed within 25 years after the map was filed.
(d) The real property was sold to a third person after the map was filed and used as if free of the dedication.
Dave Ryan
Humboldt County
Check out the citation below. The opportunity for acceptance, and therefor the offer of dedication may have expired if these conditions were met.
CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
SECTION 771.010-771.020
771.010. If a proposal is heretofore or hereafter made to dedicate real property for public improvement, there is a conclusive presumption that the proposed dedication was not accepted if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) The proposal was made by filing a map only.
(b) No acceptance of the dedication was made and recorded within 25 years after the map was filed.
(c) The real property was not used for the purpose for which the dedication was proposed within 25 years after the map was filed.
(d) The real property was sold to a third person after the map was filed and used as if free of the dedication.
Dave Ryan
Humboldt County
-
Dave Lindell
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 9:17 pm
- Location: Rancho Mirage
Outright rejected
The dedication was outright rejected on the map.
-
D Ryan
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 12:20 pm
- Location: Arcata, CA
Woodcutter,
In reading the entire section (pasted below), I concur the dedication does not appear to automatically expire. Briefly Googling some relevant court cases, the recurring theme was that the offer stands and the city can accept it. Regardless of the initial rejection, as Dave Lindell reiterated.
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
SECTION 771.010-771.020
771.010. If a proposal is heretofore or hereafter made to dedicate
real property for public improvement, there is a conclusive
presumption that the proposed dedication was not accepted if all of
the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) The proposal was made by filing a map only.
(b) No acceptance of the dedication was made and recorded within
25 years after the map was filed.
(c) The real property was not used for the purpose for which the
dedication was proposed within 25 years after the map was filed.
(d) The real property was sold to a third person after the map was
filed and used as if free of the dedication.
771.020. (a) An action is authorized to clear title to real
property of a proposal to dedicate the property for public
improvement if there is a conclusive presumption pursuant to Section
771.010 that the proposed dedication was not accepted.
(b) The action shall be pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with
Section 760.010) and shall have the following features:
(1) The public entity to which the dedication was proposed shall
be named as defendant.
(2) The judgment in the action shall clear the title of the
proposed dedication and remove the cloud created by the proposed
dedication.
In reading the entire section (pasted below), I concur the dedication does not appear to automatically expire. Briefly Googling some relevant court cases, the recurring theme was that the offer stands and the city can accept it. Regardless of the initial rejection, as Dave Lindell reiterated.
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
SECTION 771.010-771.020
771.010. If a proposal is heretofore or hereafter made to dedicate
real property for public improvement, there is a conclusive
presumption that the proposed dedication was not accepted if all of
the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) The proposal was made by filing a map only.
(b) No acceptance of the dedication was made and recorded within
25 years after the map was filed.
(c) The real property was not used for the purpose for which the
dedication was proposed within 25 years after the map was filed.
(d) The real property was sold to a third person after the map was
filed and used as if free of the dedication.
771.020. (a) An action is authorized to clear title to real
property of a proposal to dedicate the property for public
improvement if there is a conclusive presumption pursuant to Section
771.010 that the proposed dedication was not accepted.
(b) The action shall be pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with
Section 760.010) and shall have the following features:
(1) The public entity to which the dedication was proposed shall
be named as defendant.
(2) The judgment in the action shall clear the title of the
proposed dedication and remove the cloud created by the proposed
dedication.