Opinion ID: 1922029
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Plaintiff's Right to Use Bayberry Lane

Text: The plaintiff alternatively argues that he possesses the right to travel across Bayberry Lane. As evidence of this, plaintiff points to the 1952 plat, that he argues, was an incipient dedication of Bayberry Lane granting the lot owners an easement in the roadway. As additional support for an easement over Bayberry Lane, plaintiff points to the reservation of a right-of-way in the deed to the 1953 buyers. The plaintiff argues that, by virtue of his status as an assignee of Helen P. Barker, he has a right of passage over Bayberry Lane. It is this later easement that defendants contend was defeated by the Marketable Record Title Act. In Newport Realty, Inc. v. Lynch, 878 A.2d 1021 (R.I.2005), we noted that confusion and uncertainty can arise when a collateral attack is made on the intent of the grantor in depicting streets and roads on a recorded plat. Id. at 1042. Because these cases are expensive and complex, they should be decided in accordance with our settled jurisprudence   . Id. The applicable legal principles in this area are well settled. See id. at 1032-34. Disputes surrounding easements over roads depicted on recorded plats, should rise or fall by reference to the plat on which the disputed parcel is depicted. Id. at 1042. When a property owner subdivides land and `sells lots with reference to a plat, he [or she] grants easements to the purchasers in the roadways shown on the plat, with or without later dedication of the roadways to the public.' Id. at 1032 (quoting Kotuby v. Robbins, 721 A.2d 881, 884 (R.I.1998)). In the absence of dedication to the public, the easement depicted on the plat is appurtenant to the property and passes with the conveyance of the property, unless specifically excluded, even though not mentioned in the deed. Id. at 1033 (quoting Robidoux v. Pelletier, 120 R.I. 425, 436, 391 A.2d 1150, 1156 (1978)). As noted in the record, Bayberry Lane first was platted in 1952, and the first conveyances were made by reference to the 1952 plat. Consequently, the status of Bayberry Lane is determined by reference to the October 1952 plat  that depicted a three-lot subdivision with frontage on a proposed road delineated by solid lines. Bayberry Lane, the southern boundary of the three lots, was designated as a 40 wide (proposed road). Based on our holding in Newport Realty, Inc., 878 A.2d at 1033 and Kotuby, 721 A.2d at 884, Helen P. Barker obtained an easement in the 40 wide (proposed road), that was appurtenant to the property and passed to plaintiff by virtue of the conveyance of the lot to him. Significantly, plaintiff's deed from Robinson also refers to the 1952 plat, the seminal document that created the easement. The defendants contend that plaintiff does not have any easement rights in Bayberry Lane because it was designated as a proposed road of the 1952 plat. This argument fails for a number of reasons. Most roads shown on subdivision plats are proposed roads before the plat is recorded and the lots are conveyed. The roads do not come into existence until the lots are created and sold with access to the roads in the subdivision. Thus, we accord no significance to the use of the proposed road language. In Chapin v. Brown, 15 R.I. 579, 585, 10 A. 639, 641 (1887), this Court deemed irrelevant the fact that a road depicted on a recorded plat, was never laid out as a street or way. We concluded that the existence of the streets as platted on the recorded plan operates by way of implied covenant, implied grant, estoppel, or dedication, whichever way of operation may be the truer, to secure to the grantee a right of way over such platted streets   . Id. at 584, 10 A. at 641. In addition, all the plats of the former Sachuest Golf Club property depict Bayberry Lane in solid lines with access (over another proposed road) to a public thoroughfare. Bayberry Lane was the only access to a public road for lot No. 1A, the lot adjacent to Harold S. Barker's eastern boundary. These characteristics, set forth on the 1952 plat, constitute an incipient dedication by the trustees. Moreover, in Newport Realty, Inc., 878 A.2d at 1037, this Court noted that the use of solid lines on a plat serves as evidence of an incipient dedication of the roads in the plat. We held that unless the plat itself, by specific language, broken lines, or other marks, or the deeds indicate otherwise, sale of lots with reference to the plat is an incipient dedication   . Id. Consequently, we accord no significance to the designation of Bayberry Lane as a proposed road. Finally, in Samuel Nardone & Co. v. Bianchi, 524 A.2d 1114, 1116 (R.I.1987), the Court held that once an incipient dedication is established by the sale of lots with reference to a recorded plat it can be revoked only by consent of all property owners in the plat    or by adverse possession. There is no evidence in the record before the Court that the easement was revoked by unanimous consent of the lot owners, and the claim of adverse possession is pending in the Superior Court.
In the conveyance to the 1953 buyers, the defendants' predecessors in title, the trustees reserved a right of way over the lane. Although the forty-foot wide proposed roadway was conveyed in fee to the 1953 buyers, it was subject to the following reservation: Reserving, however, to    Harold S. Barker and Helen P. Barker, and their heirs and assigns, the right to pass and repass over and across on foot and with vehicles along and over said proposed rights of way forty (40) feet in width as shown on said Plat on the Northerly [Bayberry Lane] and Easterly boundaries of the herein described premises. (Emphasis added.) As a successor assignee of Helen P. Barker, plaintiff was a deeded beneficiary of that easement in Bayberry Lane. The defendants contend and the trial justice found that this deeded right-of-way was defeated by the act. However, because plaintiff's right-of-way over Bayberry Lane arose from the conveyance to Helen P. Barker, plaintiff's rights in Bayberry Lane did not arise from defendants' chain of title or the easement reserved in defendants' root deed.