,t- .- 

JIM MAnOX 

Attorney Generrl 

SupmIne court SUlldlng 

P. 0. sax 12545 

Aurm lx 75711.2545 

5cw752501 

le*x Dlom7C1247 

lelecoplw 512J47s205 

714 Jwksm. Sull. 700 

OallW, 7x. 752024505 

2w742a944 

1001 TWW. SIN* 700 . 

Nausmn, lx 770023111 

71Y222-58m 

The Attorney General of Texas 

kay 14. 1985 

i 

Ronorablc Jerry Cobb 

Criminal Diotrlct Attoroey 

P. 0. Eox 2344 

Denton. Texas 762C 1 

Opinion Ro. a-317 

lb?: Whether a comissioners court 

my approve a plat and accept a 

road for county maintenance under 

certain conditiona 

Dear l4r. Cobb: 

You have rcqueeted our opinion regarding two questions. First, 

,ou ask: 

.<. 

1. Can a commissioners court approve a plat 

and accept roade for county maintenance if three 

landownercl have not signed tha plat dedicating the 

road to tlro public? 

It is afaa indiutol that .thrrc are more than three landowners of the 

land in the plat. and that the three landovncr~, refusing to sign the 

plat, ouu separate :Lots within the plat. 

_~ A comisrionar:~~ court -uy. aerclme only ‘mch povers as the 

coostitution or thwetatuter lmve opcclficall~ conferred upon them. 

Cuulu v. ~Langhlzlu, -214 S.W.2d 451~. ,-453 (Tex.’ 1948). Section ~& l(d-0l ) r ti% c l875702-1 V., t.C.8:. mth o r lsee l c o mhsio ner u court 

of a m~,twa ppr ~r r l :plar-of e ‘a eubdivirlon dadkatiug’roads to the 

put&+ by:th;yi.af the ,land subdivIded in the~.pUt;. ‘V.T.C.S. ari. 

6702-li~.~112AOl(a), (d). If the .uurmr’oi wnera’df the tract of land 

a÷d :.,in the .plat follow the ~speclfied statutory procedure 

outlined in seetim 2.401. of articlr.~:6702-1, V.T.C.S., the comicsionero court ir rot .authorizad to’-reject the filing of the plat. 

Cashnera’ Court v. ?rank’Jester Development Co., 199 S.W.2d 1004. 

.~ 1007 (Tu. civ. Am: - Dallas 19b7.;nit ref’d n.r.e.1 (arkoval of a 

pkt &perly ill;4 ia a ninirter~l duty of the co&k&ers court). 

Sactfon 2.bOl(b) of article 6702-l. V.T.C.S.. prwides: 

(b) The owner of any tract of land . . . vho 

may hereafter divide the (I- in tvo or mre parts 

for the Inmpose of laying out any oubdiviaion of 

any such tract of land . . . or for laying out 

suburban lots or building lota, and for the 

purpom of laying out rtreetr. rlley or parb, or 

p. 1450 
Uoaorable Jerry Cobb - ?alr 2 (JM-317) 

other portion8 intmded for public uee . . . ahall 

cause a plat to ba_ude thereof. . . . (EmpE 

added). 

Thir prwfrion requires the %uner’ of the tract of land to be subdivided to cause a plat to \I(: made. Although this prwfslon uses the 

teru “wrier” in the singular , it must be read in harmony vith the 

entire ntatute. See Turnpike Authority v. Shepperd. 279 S.W.Zd 302 

(Tu. 1955). - 

Section 2.401(c) of article 6702-l provider ae follows: 

(c) Every such plat shall be duly acknouledged 

by ovnera or proprietor8 of the land, or by some 

duly authorized egent of said ovoera or proprletore, in the manner required for acknovledgemcnt 

ofeeda . Subject to the provisions contained In 

this section, suc’h plat shall be filed for record 

and be recorded lo the office of the county clerk 

of the county in *hich the land lien. (Emphasie 

added)... 

Bence, vben eectiorm 2&l(b) -and:.(c) are read together It can be 

concluded that the legislature contemplated that there might be more 

than one landomer of the tract of land to be subdivided. Therefore, 

the comisaloners court is not authorlaed to apprwe a plat which has 

been filed vithout all -~of ,the landovners’ rignatures. V.T.C.S art. 

6702-l. S2.bOlk). 

In addi+oo. you l k vhetber the conisslonem court uy accept 

the.toad# on,+he.pkt -for txrun~ maintenance uhen ~the three landowners 

baye not rigned &be plat dtxlicatiog thexo+s .tn.the. pablic. Approval 

.of: a plat and&ecu tance. of K plat dedicating roada to the public are 

. ‘. . wparate .@ b-9--- lat net .,fmu:tima : of the mmhdner*~ court. Cow 

tirsiooers’ ,~Court mb Ramk. Jester Develovment .Co.) .s AttoG 

General OoLuionSJn-200~.r<J~81). .Tbe fllinu o f l - man -or’vlet vhlch 

rhovo a strok ~01 road.~timr&, :vithout a&e, does not cokstftute a 

:: dedication. See. Cbarlstm v. Alvin State Bank, 638 S.W.2d 643 (Fex. 

APR. - Waco %62, .a.it %f’d -a.r.e.). In order to effectuate an 

l sprese dedication, there must be an intent -to dedicate.; a c-nicatian of the intent *cd ‘Ieiilcate;’ and an .acceptance~ of &he land being 

dedicatul. See :Pord: V.I. 1Iorm, 592 S.W.2d 385 (Tu. Civ. App:’ - 

iexarkana 198xWmriixt..); see also Attorney General Opinion 

JM-2.00 * The landovner or ovntrt of the tract of land must evidence an 

Intent to appropriate the land rbom .in the plat for ecme proper 

public purpose. See- Adams v. Rowleo. 228 S.U.2d 849 (Tex. 1950). The 

- -- 

filing of a pllp or plat ill onl y an offer to dedicate the-streets shorn 

thereon to the public. SW 30 Ta. Jur. 3d Dedication $20 (1983). A 

comlssionar# court is aG?Eorlred to accept propartp dedicated to the 

public. Cf. Cheeaer~ v. Grocsa, 302 ,S.W.2d 480 (Tex. Civ. App. - 

- 

-. ‘! 

p. 1451 
~?L 

\- - - 

: 

Eonorablc Jerry Cobb - rage :) (Jlt47) 

Beaumont 1957, no writ); Commissioners’ Court v. Frank Jeerer Developmsnt Co., s. Ufthou~~c thrae landmmcro’ signatures. there la 

no effective offer or intent to dedicate the land shown on tha plat 

sven though these owners own separate tracts of land. We therefore 

conclude thet the coliaaio~~ers court say not .eccept these roads for 

public mslntenance because ,cbere has beeu no dedicatiou of the roads 

to ths public. 

You also ask: 

2. Can e commhsioner pave a road if the plst 

has not been approved if the landowners who have 

not dedicated the road sign a waiver? 

Since the plat has not ‘been approved by the ccedssioners court, 

there can be uo statutory dedication of these roads to tbe public 

under Texss 1s~. See V.T.C.5. art. 6702-l. 52.401; see also Attorney 

General Opinion Jkl-200. The only methods by which these roads may he 

dedicated to the public are through express or implied dedication. A 

prior opinion of this officl? explains: 

Attorney 

Common-lav dedications are of’ tvo classes - 

express and i@ied. . . . In both, it is 

necessary that there be an appropriation of the 

land by the owner to public use, in the one case, 

by some express manifestation of his purpose to 

devote the land to public use; in the other. by 

some act or cour1w of conduct from vhlch the lav 

vould imply such rr~ intent. (Citation mitted). 

General Opinion JM-200 (1984). Unless the waivers executed 

by the landowners widena: an intent to dedicate. and the coepissioners court accepts the express or implied dedlcstion of land by 

these landowners, tha cordssloners court may not pave thess roads 

vith public funds. Id. A waiver is the voluntary or intentional 

abandoment or relinqu~hwnt of a known right. See Trlce v. Georgia 

liomes Insurance Co., 81 S.U.2d 1055 (Tex. Civ. AK - Amarillo 1935, 

no writ). Therefore, a ctmlmlasioners court is authorized to pave a 

road if the landowners vha have not signed the plst execute a vsiver 

to dedicate the roads to I:be public provided that there has been an 

acceptance by the cosmdrsloners court. A coedssioners court 

expressly accepts a dedicat:Lon when it votes and ootes the l eceptance 

In the minutes. Attorney (kneral Opinion m-200. 

SUMMARY 

Article 6702..!. , sections 2.401(b) and Cc). 

V.T.C.S.. prohibit a cownlssion~rs court from 

approving a plal: dedicating roads to the public 

vlthout the signatures of all the landowners of 

p. 1452 
Ronorable Jerry Cobb - ?ase 4 W-317) 

the trsct to be subdivided. Ror uy a cofmbissioners c o ur l tecq~r: roads for public maintenance 

when there has not ‘been sn intent to dedicate by 

all tha landovners evidenced by their signature on 

the plat. Eouevei: ,, the eoaisslonys court ia 

authorized to accel?t the plat snd p&e the roads 

dedicated to the public if the landowners, whose 

signature does net appear on the plat. have 

executed a waive:, evidencing their intent to 

dedicate the roads to the public. 

JIX HATTOX 

Attorney General of Texss 

TOM GMRR 

First Assistant Attorney Genwal 

DAVID R. RICRARDS 

Executive Assistsnt Attorney Cineral 

ROBERT GRAY 

Specks1 Assistant Attorney Gmeral 

RICK GILPIR 

Chairmen, Opinion Collrnittee 

Prepsred by Tony Guillory 

Assistant Attorney General 

&PPROV%D: 

OPINION MITTXP# 

Rick Gilpin, Chairman 

Jon Bible 

Colin Carl 

Susan Garriscm 

Tony Guilloq 

Jim Mellinger 

Jennifer Riggs 

Nancy Sutton 

p. 1453