California Surveyors Forums

I was reading the Owner Statement of the attached record Tract Map No. 22656, MB 613/24-26.
It says: "hereby dedicate to the public use all streets, highways and other public ways shown on said map."

Does this dedication means dedication in fee or an easement dedication for Mount Olive Drive?

Anyone?

Prior to its repeal in 1961, section 905 of the Streets & Highways code stated that the conveyance of a road or street to a public agency was presumed to be an easement instead of a fee.

Since the map you refer to was recorded in 1957, the dedication would have been as an easement.

Generally, a good rule for this is, unless it says fee title is dedicated, then an easement was dedicated. Usually if a purpose is given the dedication is an easement.

Warren, so what happens for those dedications that occurred after the repeal of Sec. 905?

I'm working on a RW project in Colton, CA that was once unincorporated area of San Bernardino County and all the grants for the existing RW of this street are just regular grant deeds to the County with no mention of the street or that it is a Right of way or Highway or Road purposes. These are fee grants.

I just googled "Street Dedications in CA" and this was the first link...

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi ... alawreview

Great report from 1965 about Dedications of Land in CA.

Ryan,

Attorney General Opinion 04-809 addressed this issue in 2005, where the presumption of an easement is the general rule. It references Civil Code sections 831 and 1112, which speak to the underlying fee ownership of adjacent properties going to the center of roads.

And the 2009 amendment to section 66436 of the Subdivision Map Act now requires dedications to state whether they are in fee or easement.

That is a great review of the state of the Map Act before it was recodified into the Government Code and had sections added pertaining to dedication of parks and schools, and subdivision agreements relating to deferred improvements. Very prescient.

In 1987, the acceptance statements were amended to include three options; rejection, acceptance, and acceptance subject to improvements. Of course, irrevocable offers can be rejected, and they remain open.

Additionally, the provision was added that easements were not held to include subsurface utilities unless expressly stated. There is, however, the issue of franchise agreements allowing public utilities to share rights-of-way.

It is a constantly evolving Act ...

Thanks Warren.

Thank you Warren for the valuable information.

Good luck.

There a several nuances in the law as a result of legislative actions taking, some of which were questionable.

More if you are interested.

Thank Mr. Pallamary for valuable information

BoundaryMan wrote:Thank Mr. Pallamary for valuable information

Good luck!