The issue before a California Court of Appeal in Wright v. City of Morro Bay, (2006 WL 3200909, Cal.App. 2 Dist., Nov. 7, 2006) was whether a landowner could quiet title to a portion of a dedicated street that abuts his property because the street was never opened or used for a public purpose. The Court of Appeal held that the landowner did not own the portion of the dedicate street because the city accepted the offer of dedication made by a map in 1888, the offer was not withdrawn, the city accepted the offer of dedication in 1935, and no abandonment occurred despite the fact that the roadway has never been used as a public street.
Facts
A.J. Wright (“Wright”) purchased a parcel of land in 2003 which is situated in the City of Morro Bay (“City”) within a subdivision created in 1888. Wright’s land is adjacent to a roadway that is depicted on the subdivision map as “Jordan Terrace.” Although the City formally accepted Jordan Terrace into its public street system in 1935, City has never used Jordan Terrace as a public street or for any other public purpose. Wright filed a lawsuit seeking to quiet title to the portion of Jordan Terrace which extends from the boundary of his land to the centerline of the street. Wright asserted that he owns the property because the City failed to timely accept the offer of dedication or use Jordan Terrace as a public street. The trial court granted judgment in favor of the City.
Decision
The Court of Appeal concluded that Wright does not own the portion of land extending from his boundary line to the centerline of Jordan Terrace. The Court noted that California did not adopt a statute governing the creation and dedication of subdivisions until after the creation of the subdivision in which Wright’s land is situated. Therefore, the Court was required to apply the common law rules governing subdivisions. “Under common law, the act of filing for record a map of property showing lots separated by defined areas named as streets constitutes an offer to dedicate the street to public use. . . . Where a private road has been offered for public dedication, that offer may be accepted either by formal action of the public entity or by public use.”
Wright asserted that the City did not timely accept the offer of dedication under California Code of Civil Procedure section 771.010 and its predecessor which provide that there is a conclusive presumption that a proposed dedication was not accepted if the following conditions are met: 1) a “proposal was made by filing a map only;” 2) the public entity did not file an acceptance of record within 25 years from the time the map was filed; 3) the property was not used for the dedicated purpose within 25 years from the time the map was filed, and 4) the property was sold to a third person after the map was filed and the property was used as if there was no dedication. The Court found that section 771.010 and its predecessor were not enacted until 20 years after the City accepted the dedication and the statute cannot be applied retroactively.
The Court also rejected Wright’s arguments that the offer of dedication lapsed because the City did not accept it within a reasonable amount of time and that City’s failure to improve the streets amounted to abandonment. The Court listed three reasons that Wright’s arguments must be rejected. First, the offer of dedication was not withdrawn before City accepted it by formal resolution and this constitutes a complete dedication. Second, “a public agency’s mere nonuse of dedicated land does not show abandonment.” Third, “the procedure for abandoning or vacating a public street is statutory and exclusive.” The Court noted that Wright is not without a remedy because he may petition the City to vacate Jordan Terrace following statutory procedures.
Legal Alert Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.