Title: Litvak v. Sunderland
Citation: 353 P.2d 381
Docket Number: 18867
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: June 13, 1960

353 P.2d 381 (1960) Rose LITVAK, Sam Horwitz, and The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Orlo Ray SUNDERLAND, Defendant in Error. No. 18867. Supreme Court of Colorado. In Department. June 13, 1960. Rehearing Denied July 11, 1960. *382 Harry A. Feder, Milton Morris, Denver, Ronald J. Hardesty, Golden, for plaintiffs in error. Glenn L. Daly, Denver, for defendant in error. KNAUSS, Justice. On March 11, 1957 Rose Litvak and Sam Horwitz, owners of lots adjacent to defendant's property, filed an amended complaint against Orlo Ray Sunderland and the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Jefferson, wherein they prayed that the court find and determine that Ames Street lying between West 16th Avenue and West 17th Avenue "is a public highway and that the title thereof is now vested in and at all times herein has been vested in the County of Jefferson, State of Colorado" and that defendant Sunderland "is trespassing upon said portion of Ames Street upon which he has erected and maintains a fence and that said defendant be ordered * * * to remove immediately said fence from the confines of the street." The complaint further prayed for $2,500 damages against defendant Sunderland. The Board of County Commissioners filed an answer to the amended complaint in which it was stated that said amended complaint "fails to state a claim against this defendant upon which relief can be granted." A cross-claim was also filed by said Board against defendant Sunderland in which it was alleged that the fence referred to in the amended complaint "is an unlawful obstruction of a public highway and is a public nuisance." The County Commissioners prayed that defendant Sunderland be ordered to forthwith remove that part of the fence standing within Ames Street. Sunderland filed his answer to the amended complaint in which he alleged that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim, and further denied most of the allegations of the amended complaint; admitted that his wife acquired title to this land in 1939 and she in turn conveyed the record title to Sunderland in October 1941. He admits that Ames Street is so designated on the plat of "Edgewater" and is shown to be 60 feet in width and that said so-called street abuts his lots numbered 13 to 24 in Block 17 of "Edgewater". He further admitted constructing the fence complained of in 1939 and that in June 1956 the Board of County Commissioners requested him to remove the fence, which he declined to do. He alleged that no part of said platted land is in any City or town, but was located in an unincorporated area in the County of Jefferson; that the plat of "Edgewater" filed in 1889 was a common law offer to dedicate to the public use the designated streets shown thereon and that said offer was not accepted by the public authorities, the public, or by any person or persons on their behalf within a reasonable time, or at all. That in the absence of such acceptance, the owners of the abutting lots became the owners of said street to the center thereof, subject only to the easement for a public street upon acceptance by the public of the offer of dedication within a reasonable time. Sunderland further alleged that the designated Ames Street not having been accepted or put to use for fifty years or more was abandoned and vacated, and that in 1939 he, Sunderland, planted trees and shrubs on "his" east half of said street, together with a fence, as part of the landscaping of "his" property. He further contends that plaintiffs are estopped from claiming or asserting at this time any easement or right-of-way across that portion of Ames Street enclosed by his fence. *383 The facts in the case were stipulated by the parties and after full argument in the trial court and the submission of briefs the trial court found in favor of Sunderland, dismissing the complaint. We quote from the findings and conclusions of the trial judge: We are not called upon to determine who owns the east thirty feet of the so-called Ames Street adjacent on the west to lots 13 to 24 inclusive of Block 17, Edgewater. As was said in Hand v. Rhodes, 125 Colo. 508, 245 P.2d 292, 295: It is not contended by plaintiffs that they, or either of them, have any title to the strip of land fenced by Sunderland. Plaintiffs' claim to relief is based on their being a part of the public, and obviously their right to injunctive relief, if any, is dependent upon an acceptance by the public authority of the offer to dedicate Ames Street contained in the 1889 plat, as above indicated, which acceptance was never made. The rule is well settled in this jurisdiction that the sale of lots by reference to a recorded map or plat upon which are shown public places is an offer to dedicate such places to public use, and that there must be an acceptance of such offer by the general public or by the public authorities within a reasonable time. If there has been no acceptance within a reasonable time the public right to accept may be lost. Town of Manitou v. International Trust Co., 30 Colo. 467, 70 P. 757; Fortner v. Eldorado Springs Resort Co., 76 Colo. 106, 230 P. 386; Board of Com'rs of Jefferson County v. Warneke, 85 Colo. 388, 276 P. 671, 674; Hand v. Rhodes, supra. In Board of Com'rs of Jefferson County v. Warneke, supra, after first reviewing existing cases in this jurisdiction, the court states: "It is necessary, in order to constitute a public street or highway, at common law, that there be both a dedication and acceptance. It is also true that a dedication without an acceptance is merely an offer to dedicate, which may, under some circumstances, be withdrawn. It is equally true that, until there is an acceptance, respecting a common-law dedication, the public acquires no interest in the streets and assumes no duties with reference thereto. It would also seem to be the general rule, that in order to constitute an *384 acceptance, it must be made by the proper authorities within a reasonable time, or the right to accept may be lost. In Town of Manitou v. International Trust Company, supra, the trial court held that a certain parcel of land had never been dedicated to the public use and if there had been a dedication, the public had not accepted it. This court affirmed the trial court and stated in part as follows [30 Colo. 467, 70 P. 761]: In Hand v. Rhodes, supra, this Court refutes an argument that dedication of a public alley had not been accepted, in the following language: Plaintiffs there sought an order restraining defendants from blocking a strip of land adjoining and allegedly the only means of access to the rear of plaintiff's property on the ground, inter alia, that the strip was a public alley. A judgment in favor of plaintiff was reversed and the trial court ordered to dismiss the complaint. At least fifteen other states have adopted the rule that acceptance of an offer of dedication must be made within a reasonable time or the public loses the right to accept. See cases collected in 66 A.L.R. 321, at page 325. In the present case the stipulated facts uncontrovertably show that the plat of Edgewater, offering certain streets for the public use, was filed of record in the year 1889; that the strip of land in question was never improved, used or maintained as a street by the public, or by any public authority; that defendant fenced and landscaped a portion of said land in the year 1939, and that no objection was raised to such action until the year 1956 at which time the strip of land still remained unimproved and unused as a public street or right-of-way. Therefore, the general public or the proper authorities did not accept the offer of dedication within a reasonable time, for the offer remained unaccepted over a period of approximately sixty-six years. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. MOORE and FRANTZ, JJ., concur.