Right-of-Way Driveway

As Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Manager for a local county, I have the opportunity to witness many unusual land disputes.  Fortunately, many of these disputes are easily resolved by simply referring to the official document for a particular portion of land, the Warranty Deed, or Quit Claim Deed, or Beneficiary Deed, to name just a few.  The deed sometimes outlines specific rights that are transferred with a particular piece of property, when it is sold to another.  Consequently, in solving disputes between property owners, the deed is the first place that many refer.  (Assessor)

The issue this week was between two farmers, fighting over a 20-foot strip of land.  The property owner to east claims he owns it and his driveway branches from it (see aerial image above).  The property owner on upper west side claims he owns it, and the person to the east has no right to use it.  A couple of years ago, the property to the east further infuriated the owner to the west by registering a Right-of-Way deed for this 20-foot strip of land.  Unfortunately, he attempted to do so five years after he had sold it to the person who now owns the west side.  

Recently, the attorney for Mr. West contacted me.  He wanted to clarify the connection between a property deed and our online GIS system; as well, he wanted clarification of the wording of the deed he had.  We quickly confirmed that the south line of the property in question was appearing too far north on the map.  In the aerial photo above, you can even see where the property line should be, where a truck is parked on the map.  (GIS) Consequently, after reviewing documentation that the attorney forwarded, and a bit of research in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds, all the necessary corrections were made and a new piece to the puzzle of the other half of the dispute made its appearance.

While doing the research for supporting documentation on this change, a deed was received transferring ownership of the southwest property.  This Warranty Deed referenced the 20-foot strip of land, like all of the other deeds had; naming how it had been granted; however, this deed gave a specific Book and Page location of the document that deeded that 20-foot strip of land.  Hiding in a document from 1895, was the missing link in the dispute over the 20-foot strip of land.

Throughout all of the deeds of all parties involved in the dispute, through all of the transfers through the years, they had given the metes and bounds for the 20-foot strip.  Sometimes, the language was such that it excepted it from the transfer and then gave it right back, which was odd enough.  Unfortunately, none of them had spelled out which deed actually separated the 20-foot strip of land from the properties involved.

Speaking briefly with Mr. West’s attorney, he indicated that everyone was “aware of that deed but had reviewed it and “found it to be essentially the same as all of the others.”  Regardless of whether it was the same as all of the others, it was the documentation deeding the 20-foot strip of land.  

Retrieving and reviewing the document was as easy as walking across the hall to the Office of the Recorder.  In an old county register, with very careful and neat handwriting, the deed from 1895 spelled out the disposition of the 20-foot strip of land rather explicitly.  After the usual “party of the first part” and “party of the second part,” it stated that “... said land is deeded to said buyer for a for a road and will be 20 feet wide from place of beginning to place of ending and shall remain as his property as long as used for road purposes only.”  (County) As well, it stipulates that the owners of surrounding properties have the right to keep gates on the roadway to protect their crops and use the land to access their properties.

Indeed, it appears that the document very specifically provides for rights to the 20-foot strip of land for the benefit of all parties involved.  Previous experience indicates to me that the wording of the document is the tiebreaker, which under normal circumstances would indicate that when the land is no longer used for a road, it should revert to the original owner.  However, the final word on the interpretation of this situation is probably that of the Department of Planning and Zoning.  

In a meeting with the Department of Planning and Zoning, they reviewed all of the documentation; as I assumed, of specific interest was the original deed for the 20-foot strip of land.  Many of these individuals know the parties involved well, so their initial response was not too surprising.  They indicated that all of the parties involved should hire an attorney to sort it out for them.  When pressed further for an answer that I could use in future situations, I was not surprised that they said simply, “It is a right of way, but do not tell them that.  We have tried, and it will only make the situation worse.  Let them hire an attorney and get a judgment.”  They went on to confirm that my assessment was correct, technically.  When it comes down to it, as soon as they quit using it as a road, then ownership would revert to the original owner.  (PNZ)

Sources:

• Assessor – General office policy on land disputes.  Office of the Platte County Assessor.  October 3, 2008.  
• GIS – Platte County Geographic Information System Online  http://co.platte.mo.us.  (accessed 04OCT08)
• Attorney – The attorney for the property owner on the upper west side of the GIS map included.  Name withheld.
• County –   Platte County Deed; Book 35, Page 287; circa 1895.
• PNZ –   Platte County Department of Planning and Zoning.  Spokesperson name withheld by request.

GGP345 – Land Use Planning