The Florida Bar Proposed August 2008
STANDARD 11.5ABANDONMENT OF STREET ON PLATTED LAND
STANDARD: WHEN AN INTERIOR STREET DEDICATED BY PLAT IS DISCONTINUEDTHROUGH LEGAL PROCESS AND TITLE TO, OR THE “REVERSIONARY INTEREST” IN,THE STREET HAS NOT BEEN NOT PROPERLY RESERVED TO THE DEDICATOR, FEETITLE TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE STREET ABUTTING A LOT IS IN THE LOT OWNER,SUBJECT TO ANY PRIVATE EASEMENT RIGHTS, SUCH THAT TITLE TO THE STREET ISENCUMBERED BY THE LOT OWNER’S MORTGAGE OF THE LOT, UNLESS PROVIDEDOTHERWISE IN THE CONVEYANCE OR MORTGAGE.
Problem: Veronese Street, a dedicated interior street in the Blackacre subdivision, was vacatedby theCity. John Doe owned a lot in Blackacre which abutted Veronese Street. There was no effectivereservation of title to, or the reversionary interest in, Veronese Street. John Doe claimed fee titleto the centerline of the street. Was his claim of title valid?Answer: Yes, subject to any private easement rights.Authorities& References:
New Fort Pierce Hotel Co. v. Phoenix Title Corp.
, 171 So. 525 (1936);
Smith v. Horn
, 70 So.435 (1915);
Florida S. Ry. v. Brown
, 1 So. 512 (1887);
Burkart v. City of Ft. Lauderdale
, 168So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1964);
Dean v. MOD Properties, Ltd.
, 528 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5
Calvert v. Morgan
, 436 So. 2d 314 (Fla 1st DCA 1983);
Hurt v. Lenchuk
, 233 So. 2d 350 (Fla.4th DCA 1969); ATIF TN 24.01.01.Comment: As the conveyance of lots by reference to a plat may create private easement rights in adjoininglot owners, these rights should be considered in addition to public easement rights whenanalyzing the abandonment of a street.
Comment to Standard 11.4. When the street is onthe periphery of the plat and the dedicator does not, at the time of the plat, own the landon theother side of the street outside of the plat and does not reserve title to, or the “reversionaryinterest” in, the street, the abutting lot owner will take the entire width of the streetuponvacation of the street, subject to any private easement rights.
Title to the underlying fee of astreet on the periphery of the plat is otherwise subject to the all of standards applicable to title tointerior streets, but caution should be observed when analyzing periphery streets as theyfrequently run along bodies of water and this may raise separate issues of submerged lands andmay implicate riparian rights.
Caples v. Taliaferro
, 197 So. 861 (Fla. 1940).Standards 11.3, 11.4 and 11.5 treat closely related issues and should be read together for a fullunderstanding of title to streets dedicated by plat.