Opinion ID: 2338783
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Affidavit to Vacate Plat

Text: [¶ 36] As reflected in the facts set out above, the Griffiths attempted to vacate the plat lines and Mountain View Loop on their portion of the subdivision by filing an affidavit for vacation which was recorded by Laramie County on March 2, 1994. The affidavit was signed by Noel and Colleen Ann Griffith. [¶ 37] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 34-12-102 (LexisNexis 2011) provides in relevant part: Every original owner or proprietor of any tract or parcel of land, who has heretofore subdivided, or shall hereafter subdivide the same into three (3) or more parts for the purpose of laying out any ... suburban lots, shall cause a plat of such subdivision... to be made.... Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 34-12-103 (LexisNexis 2011) provides: Every such plat ... shall be signed by the owners and proprietors, and shall be duly acknowledged before some officer authorized to take the acknowledgement of deeds. The plat shall meet the approval of the board of county commissioners if it is of land situated without the boundaries of any city or town.... When thus executed, acknowledged and approved, said plat shall be filed for record and recorded in the office of the clerk of the proper county[.] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 34-12-106 (LexisNexis 2011), governing the vacation of plats, provides: Any such plat may be vacated by the proprietors thereof at any time before the sale of any lots therein, by a written instrument declaring the same to be vacated, duly executed, acknowledged or proved and recorded in the same office with the plat to be vacated, and the execution and recording of such writing shall operate to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the plat so vacated, and to divest all public rights in the streets, alleys, commons and public grounds laid out or described in such plat, and in case where any lots have been sold, the plat may be vacated as herein provided, by all the owners of lots in such plat joining in the execution of the writing aforesaid. [¶ 38] In the present case, the original owner or proprietor of Table Mountain Ranches had sold lots within the subdivision at the time the Griffiths sought to vacate the plat. Pursuant to § 34-12-106, therefore, in order to vacate the plat, all owners of lots in the plat had to join in a written instrument, duly executed, acknowledged and recorded in the Laramie County Clerk's office, declaring the plat to be vacated. It is undisputed that the Griffiths were the only owners of lots in the subdivision to execute the affidavit of vacation; no other owners of lots in the plat joined in the affidavit. Consequently, the effort to vacate the plat was not done in accordance with Wyoming law. [¶ 39] This Court has established the principle that, once a road becomes a public road, the public has a vested right to use it, and it cannot be vacated ... without compliance with the appropriate statutes. Sare v. Sheridan County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 784 P.2d 593, 595 (Wyo.1989), quoting Sheridan County v. Spiro, 697 P.2d 290, 303 (Wyo.1985) and citing Bd. of County Comm'rs, Carbon County v. White, 547 P.2d 1195 (Wyo.1976). There is no question from the language contained in the original plat that the owner intended to dedicate Mountain View Loop for public use. Consequently, the Griffiths could not vacate it without following the statutory procedures. They did not follow those procedures; therefore, the attempt to vacate Mountain View Loop was not effective. [¶ 40] Citing Moorcroft v. Lang, 779 P.2d 1180, 1184 (Wyo.1989), the Carnahans assert that after an original owner or proprietor sells lots in a subdivision, the decision to vacate a street in the subdivision belongs to the owners of lots abutting the street. Because the only lots sold before the Griffiths vacated the plat did not abut the portion of Mountain View Loop they attempted to vacate, and only the Griffiths' lots abutted that portion of the easement, the Carnahans maintain the Griffiths acted in accordance with the statutes. [¶ 41] The issue in Moorcroft was whether a mineral interest underlying a street dedicated to public use transferred with the sale of lots adjoining the street to the lot owners, or whether the original owner-developer retained the mineral interest. A majority of the court held that the mineral interest remained with the owner-developer. In reaching that result, the Court addressed generally the interests created when an owner-developer dedicates a street for public use and vacates the street before any lots are sold, as compared to when a developer sells lots and vacation is sought after the sale. In the first instance, it is clearly the developer who has the authority to vacate the street. In the second instance, the authority to vacate the street transfers from the developer to the new owners. [¶ 42] In the course of that discussion, the Court said in dicta that upon the sale of lots within a plat the decision to vacate [a street] belongs to the abutting lot owners. This statement is correct to the extent that it means upon the sale of lots in a plat, the developer no longer has the authority to vacate; that authority belongs to the lot owners. The statement is incorrect to the extent it suggests owners of lots abutting a portion of a plat dedicated to public use can unilaterally vacate that portion of the plat. The express language of § 34-12-106 provides that, after lots have been sold, a plat may be vacated by all owners of lots in such plat joining in a written, duly executed and acknowledged statement and recording it in the office where the plat is recorded. The Griffiths did not have the authority to vacate any portion of Mountain View Loop without all owners of lots in the plat joining in the written instrument recorded in the Laramie County Clerk's office. [¶ 43] The Carnahans also cite Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 34-12-108 (LexisNexis 2011) which provides for partial vacation of a plat as follows: Any part of a plat may be vacated under the provisions, and subject to the conditions of this act [§§ 34-12-101 through XX-XX-XXX, XX-XX-XXX through XX-XX-XXX]; provided, such vacating does not abridge or destroy any of the rights and privileges of other proprietors in said plat[.] They assert the Griffiths' attempt to vacate Mountain View Loop did not abridge or destroy any of the rights and privileges of other owners because the vacation did not affect access to other lots. Presumably, the Carnahans mean that no rights were affected because the vacation did not involve either eastern access from County Road No. 20 to lots 221 and 222 or western access from the county road to the remaining lots in the subdivision. [¶ 44] In addressing the Carnahans' claims that the Lewises lacked standing to pursue this action because they could not demonstrate perceptible harm, we concluded the Lewises showed sufficient harm. Our resolution of that issue applies equally in the context of the Carnahans' assertion that vacation of the portion of Mountain View Loop on their property did not affect the Lewises' rights. As we have said, the Lewises own property in a subdivision containing an easement dedicated to public use and platted to run through the subdivision from one access point to another. The Carnahans constructed a fence, contrary to the dedication, blocking the Lewises' use of a portion of the easement to get to and from their property from one of the access points. Clearly, the 1994 Affidavit to Vacate the easement affected their rights. The district court correctly concluded that the 1994 Affidavit did not comply with Wyoming law and was not effective to vacate Mountain View Loop. Our resolution of this issue makes it unnecessary to address the Carnahans' trespass claim.