Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 <br />Vacation of City Streets Page 10 <br />This standard has been extended to include parks and other public grounds <br />by the courts. <br />Church ofsts. Peter and <br />The standard of uselessness is a more stringent standard than the public <br />Paul of Lake George v. <br />Lake George Tp., 89 <br />benefit standard for a vacation by resolution of a city council. A petitioner <br />N.W.2d 708 (Minn. 1958). <br />must prove that the land to be vacated has no present or future use <br />In re Verbick, 607 N.W.2d <br />148 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). <br />consistent with the land's original purpose as a public way or ground. <br />IV. Property interests after a vacation <br />A. Reversion and ownership <br />Mccuen v. Mccaruel, 263 <br />when a street is lawfully vacated, the easement granting the public the <br />N.W.2d 64, (Minn. 1978). <br />right to travel the street ceases to exist, and the title to the land under the <br />street reverts to the underlying fee owners of the property for their <br />exclusive use and enjoyment. The reversion occurs by operation of law, <br />and the city is not able to direct or convey ownership of the fee title upon <br />vacation. <br />The law presumes property owners along the vacated street each hold a <br />grant of soil to the center of the street where their property abuts the street. <br />As a result, upon vacation, title to half of the street usually reverts to each <br />abutting property owner. <br />In re Robbins, 24 N.W. 356 <br />The one-half ownership rule is based on the presumption that adjoining <br />(Minn. lsss). Edgewater <br />Cottage Assn, Inc. v. <br />landowners equally furnished land for the roadway use. However, this rule <br />Watson, 387 NW 2d 216 <br />does not apply where evidence shows the street was laid out wholly on one <br />(Minn. Ct. App. 1986). <br />of the abutting owner's land. In this instance, where one owner furnished <br />all of the land for the street, that landowner (or the landowner's successor <br />in interest) will receive all of the land back upon vacation. <br />In a few rare instances, the city may actually own the underlying fee title to <br />the vacated public way or grounds. In these instances, upon vacation the <br />city becomes the fee owner and may keep or dispose of the property as it <br />deems in the best interests of the city. <br />B. Compensation to the city for loss of the street <br />to be vacated <br />A.G. Op. 396-G-16 (Sept. 9, <br />As a general rule, a municipality has no proprietary interest in a public <br />1965). A.G. Op. 396-G-16 <br />(Apr. 10, 1947). <br />street. Rather the city holds an easement in favor of the public granting a <br />right to travel the street. As a result, the city does not hold a fee interest in <br />the street and cannot ask a petitioner to pay compensation for the loss of <br />the street to the city as a condition to granting a vacation. <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 <br />Vacation of City Streets Page 10 <br />