[WSBARP] Off topic question re: vacating a county road

Tue Dec 12 10:13:03 PST 2023

What does it mean “those who bought with reference to the plat and in reliance thereon”  in order that a lot owner within the plat still has a private easement for access after the court ordered vacation.

Bryce H. Dille
Dille Law, PLLC
2010 Caton Way SW Ste. 101
Olympia, WA 98502
Office: 360-350-0270
Cell: 253-579-5561

[R_Alan_Swanson-WH-200]
** Please note that I use the dictation feature of my iPhone and that sometimes everything I say does not get properly translated**

This transmission contains confidential attorney-client communications and may not be disclosed to any person but the intended recipient(s).  If this matter is transmitted to you in error, please notify the sender immediately.

Business Entity Creation and Management, Business, Government and Tax Law, Real Estate and Land Use, Residential, Commercial and Condominium Development Real Estate and Commercial Transactions & Closings, Including Performing Services as IRS Section 1031 Exchange Facilitator Estate Planning, including Wills and Trusts, and Probate Administration Representation Homeowners/Condominium Association Real Estate Developments Real Property Foreclosures and Forfeitures.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Jack Grant
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 9:53 AM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Off topic question re: vacating a county road

I agree Scott, thanks.  The streets that were vacated by the 1899-1890 statute remain “subject to private easements over the streets by those who bought with reference to the plat and in reliance thereon” Brown v. Olmstead, 49 Wn.2d 210, 299 P.2d 564.  Those conditions are met for this PC. - Are you aware of any case that limits the “private easements” to just utilities and not access?

The PC’s current access (within the ROW in question to the south) is by way of a County trail permit and the constructed road is subject to washout and treefall (very large firs and cedars) on an annual basis and its use is limited by an adjacent, ancient archaeological site (shell midden).  The plan was to build a secondary access about 1,000 feet along the same ROW (to the North) to adjoin with other constructed roads in the plat.

Here, the Quiet Title Stipulation purports to vacate the 60 ROW to the North of the PC’s property – an area needed for PC to connect to the other constructed road.  We understand the new owner will be building a new house close to, if not on, the ROW.  A private easement for access could be a problem for that owner.

The 2nd concern in this case is about process - whether the owner with the Quiet Title Stipulation actually needed to petition the County per RCW 36.87, giving neighbors notice of the petition and “explaining how the ROW has no future public use nor will its loss adversely impact current or future public needs”.  The County engineer who reviewed the status of this road ROW a few years ago thought that process would be required because in 1936, the County Commissioners issued a Vacation Order affecting “all streets shown on the 1889 Plymouth Plat except” -and then went on to except many of the streets shown on the plat, including the ROW in question.  The map accompanying that order clearly marks the ROW area (and others) as “open”.  The plat was subsequently marked up with the same information.  It may be that the prosecuting attorney who “acquiesced” in the Quiet Title Stipulation did not review the County’s own notes.   He did admit to me that he “had not noticed the notations on the map itself that certain roads were “open”.

The devil is in the details, so they say.

Cheers

Jack
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of scott scottgthomaslaw.com
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 3:42 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Off topic question re: vacating a county road

County roads that were platted but unopened or unused prior to 1905 may have been automatically vacated by operation of law.  RCW 36.87.090.  See also Gillis v. King County, 42 Wn.2d 373 (1953), and Lewis v. Seattle, 174 Wash. 219 (1933).  A street vacation does not vacate utility easements.
On 12/11/2023 8:14 AM PST Jack Grant <jgrant at jackgrantlaw.com<mailto:jgrant at jackgrantlaw.com>> wrote:

Listmates, can someone vacate an open but unconstructed county road without giving notice to neighbors, without protecting existing downstream underground and overhead utilities and as far as we know, without local government review per RCW 36.87 apart from the county prosecuting attorney “acquiescing” in the entry of a Whatcom County Superior Court “Stipulation and Agreed Judgment Quieting Title” purporting to vacate a portion of the county road right-of-way?

Considering an action to reverse the Quiet Title Order.

Thank you

Jack

The Cross Border Law Firm
Jack H. Grant, P.S. – Attorney at Law
114 West Magnolia Street
4th floor - #136
Bellingham, WA
98225

Cell:    604-671-8075
Cell:    360-220-4618
www.jackgrantlaw.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jackgrantlaw.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=ZjJT61sMYHYXW1a7W0qvaz-zO3o_Ea2RRxXvW5Yr3-0&m=ZL7rL0HaraKEDx_yqZJTfLDBhvTRyr8dlf-MvPFlCBW9N3pZxzK88-GL8SWGrF7-&s=vw-a5XTs5-tdtJDOgr691NX4tD3r4E6RH9XKcpIzj6k&e=>

***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***

_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com>
http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__mailman.fsr.com_mailman_listinfo_wsbarp&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=ZjJT61sMYHYXW1a7W0qvaz-zO3o_Ea2RRxXvW5Yr3-0&m=ZL7rL0HaraKEDx_yqZJTfLDBhvTRyr8dlf-MvPFlCBW9N3pZxzK88-GL8SWGrF7-&s=-DtZkXBtSWAlUaIoO6WNRLFYTHuLPZ1cpf2BUIk7qQ8&e=>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20231212/1ebbbb4a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8651 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20231212/1ebbbb4a/image001.png>