Reversionary rights quitclaim?

[CBarrett]

Have you had to deal with quitclaiming reversionary rights to another party (a different abutter)?
Can it be done by a simple deed, prior to a street vacation?
All parties in transaction are in agreement on what they want.

I read online that it can be done, has anyone actually gone through the process and knows that it is legal?

Thanks!

[Mike Mueller]

I was hoping someone with more knowledge weighs in on this.... Anyone?

Quick clarification:
Is this a RoW vacation with the upland owner attempting to transfer their interest of the half width of a road they technically retain fee ownership of?
Or
Is this a case of "I get my land back if you ever build a flophouse" sort of reversionary right?

Based on your post I am assuming its the first case. Since the underlying fee ownership is the basis for the right, a LLA would be the safest? A quitclaim could be argued to be an illegal LLA since they would be transferring fee title without the blessing of the local agency. That said, trying to convince most planners that a LLA on a section of road is actually transferring to another adjacent property would be an interesting effort :)

If the road is in fee to the county/city then technically wouldn't they be required to sell the road as a seperate legal parcel through the standard process, IE anyone can buy it? If I remember correctly (10+years ago) any road that is considered fee by the County of Sonoma is a real pain in the butt to abandon because it has to go to auction. In the case I am thinking of some stranger bid up the cost in hopes of buying it and then selling it for profit to the guy who was next to it.

Alternatively, I have seen folks enter into legal agreements which stipulate that party A will do a LLA with party B, at some future date, often with a legal description of the area to be transferred. These were mostly done for escrow situations were the LLA would be too long to do in escrow, so they lock in the deal and move on with the sale.

Good luck finding the right paperwork solution!

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[CBarrett]

Street got widened, with a 40°triangular branch off. That created a 0.7 acre island (think part of a traffic circle).
Municipality is vcating it. There are three underlying owners. One is willing to acquire the reversionary rights from the other two, the other two are willing to give/sell them.

I was looking a the situation thinking, if these guy quitclaim or grant reversionary rights within the certain area to the third guy, before the vacation happens, then the third guy 'takes all' upon vacation. It might need some sort of a certificate of compliance, but they are not looking to turn it into a buildable parcel.
The spandrel-ish looking piece will most likely be landscaped and maintained by the third guy, maybe with some surface water BMP measures, to beef up his open space ratio on the adjacent development. City agrees with the end goal, but they are not confident on how to make it happen. Almost talking a parcel map process - which in this case may end up being too lengthy.

I don't have an actual picture, but something very loosely related to this configuration:
https://www.alamy.com/an-aerial-shot-of ... 98284.html

[CBarrett]

I found this tidbit:

According to California code of civil procedure, reversionary tights are treated the same way as remainder parcels.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... y+interest

[kwilson]

Many years ago I worked with a client whose property benefited from a vacation. Problem was the complex shape of the parcels involved made it difficult to determine where the reversion lines would end up. It turned into an expensive lawsuit for this client. The county just vacated the toad in question but did not specify how the property would revert. The assessor mapped the new lot lines after the fact.

In another similar situation the City in their vacation created the reversionary parcels and specified which properties received which land. Problem solved. I suppose one of the adjacent owners could have filed suit against the city if they did not like the result (none did to my knowledge). And we all know the saying “You can’t fight city hall”.

I am working on one right now. It’s the other thread where the City never accepted the dedication but the assessor decided unilaterally that the alley has been vacated and on their map added the alley to the adjacent owners property.

So it seems that the agency with jurisdiction should think more carefully when vacating land.

[kwilson]

If I remember correctly the City that created the reversion parcels also filed certificates of compliance for all the parcels that received vacated property. I believe that was a project in Atascadero, CA.

[Mike Mueller]

I was hoping someone would chime in regarding the ability to quitclaim the reversionary rights vs having to do a LLA... Anyone?

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[Derek_9672]

This has come up in a project I'm working on where the railroad wants to acquire a portion of a County Road that was created under an 1879 subdivision. The road would revert to the adjoining upland (subdivision parcel) owner who still has underlying fee title to the roadway. I don't see why they could not quitclaim the underlying fee prior to the abandonment process. But the paper trail needs to be sound and make sure everyone understands. The process would be different for a fee road as Mikey outlined, where there are no reversionary rights. The agency can dispose of fee roads however they wish, or however they have elected to do so under adopted code.

[Warren Smith]

Right of way easements are an encumbrance on underlying fee title parcels (subject to). Once vacated, the burden is removed. When lots are created simultaneously by a subdivision map, underlying fee is to the centerline of dedicated streets.

Reversionary rights deal with a clause in the grant of a fee strip that, in the event the public use is vacated, the strip so dedicated will revert to the grantor as if it had not been granted. Explicit language needs to be in the original grant for this to take place. A similar provision is SMA 66477.5, where land dedicated for public purposes shall be reconveyed to the subdivider if that public purpose no longer exists.

If fee title for rights of way are dedicated by a subdivision map, then the local agency may dispense with vacated strips as it deems equitable.