Even though the rights of the public have been done away with...any property along it could still have a remaining interest in it
Â
Â
Draft the additional piece on, call it out with reference to the vacation, the office that's requiring it, and the name of the guy you're talking to. "Rights of others may exist"
Of course the state matters regarding vacations.
We have had exactly the same issue crop up here. The state Supreme Court has been emphatic about it. If the lot has reversionary rights, then the lot owner already owns to the centerline.Â
There is no title issue.Â
The strip from the edge of the alley to the centerline is owned in fee simple determinable by the public. When the alley is vacated the public ownership is extinguished, and the fee simple ownership of the lot owner now extends to the limits of the lot's reversionary rights without the split estate; the "dominate" estate of the public is removed.Â
No need for a replat, in fact the court went further and declared that there is no need to acknowledge the ownership of the alley in deed grants, the lot is all you need to describe, because the lot already extended to the centerline, although, I would recommend including the vacated alley in any description going forward.Â
Â
We operate the same as Mighty Moe. The lot doesn't "grow". The owner owns another strip of ground which is described as being the vacated XXXXX half of the alley. If the owner so desires he could sell that strip to the adjoiner on the other side of the alley or possibly purchase the other half of the alley from the adjoiner.
Thank you all for your thoughtful insight!
The gatekeeper at the TM office agreed to accept the boundary/legal instead of the replat at the direction of the Engineer.
Now he's asking me to reword my point of beginning because he doesn't like "Commencing for the same..." 🤓
