Falula Farms v. Ludlow, 866 P.2d 569 (Utah App. 1993)

FactsPlaintiff Falula’s predecessor subdivided land on shore of Bear Lake, dedicating 66-foot ROW for a county road, stating that “I relinquish all rights.” Falula’s predecessor sold two lots along road to defendant Ludlow’s predecessor.
Rich County granted Falula’s petition to move road 22 feet to west. QCD from County to Falula, of 22-foot strip, and road moved to west. (In light of issue as framed below, Ludlow’s lots must have been on east of road, despite court’s opinion stating that road was on east of Ludlow’s lots.)

Issue: Upon vacation of road, does adjoining owner acquire to centerline? Or does local government retain an interest which it can convey?

Analysis Under common law, when a highway or road is dedicated for public use, the public (represented by local government) obtains only an easement; and owner of land abutting highway, owns to middle of highway. “Consequently, when a city or county abandoned or vacated a dedicated highway or road, the abutting landowners owned and possessed the underlying property to the middle of the highway or road.” [Presently codified in 72-5-103 (2005), also saying government may purchase a fee.]
But as to use of subdivision plat, Utah has changed common law, so dedication grants fee. [10-9-807 (2005), 17-27-807 (2005).] Here, Falula’s predecessor used subdivision plat, so dedication of road created fee.
But when government acquires a fee for ROW, it is defeasible: when vacated or narrowed, this relinquishes fee. Here, when county vacated part of road by moving it 22 feet to west, this was a reversion to Ludlow, of fee simple title and of right to exclusive use and control.

Thoughts:
(1)What if the road was acquired by eminent domain, along a property boundary, but carved solely from the land on one side of boundary? Presumably the landowner from whom the land was taken, retains a reversionary interest as to the whole, such that upon vacation, he receives the entire road. But: Falula’s close predecessor was the developer from whom the entire road came?

(2)What if persons have fenced off a roadway stub and included it in their yard, and are shown as owners on recorder’s plat. Did government really have an interest which it could sell? Or, does other party own reversionary interest in half, and neighbor owns only east half, and needlessly paid for an interest they already owned?

[See Utah Code as to effect of vacation of a dedication of road.]