Opinion ID: 1440779
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Subsequent Rededications

Text: The Plonskis next argue that, after 1971, the paper street was rededicated for public use. They contend that, after 1971, the Hershes became owners of the entire fee interest in the proposed street and they expressly rededicated it in 1996 when they filed a plan to subdivide their lot and/or in 1998 when they filed a boundary line adjustment plan and then sold a lot pursuant to that plan. Alternatively, they assert that, after 1971, the Goodwins and the Hershes each had a fee simple interest in the paper street to its center line. See Duchesnaye, 118 N.H. at 732, 394 A.2d 59. The Hershes, they argue, rededicated their half of the street in 1996 and/or in 1998. The Goodwins, they contend, rededicated their half of the paper street in 1987, when they filed a plan to subdivide their lot, and in 1997, when they sold one of the subdivided lots. They assert either that these subsequent dedications have been accepted or that they remain open and that the trial court erred when it found to the contrary. We first address whether the Hershes' 1996 subdivision plan and/or 1998 boundary line adjustment plan clearly manifested their intent to rededicate either the entire paper street, assuming they owned it, or their half of it, for public use. See 11A McQuillin, supra § 33.36, at 413-14. While ordinarily the question of whether the property owner intended to dedicate land for public use is a question of fact, [t]he construction of a plat is generally one of law for the court. Id. § 33.41, at 426-27. In construing plats and maps as to dedications, courts will give effect to their plain meaning and intent, exhibited by their outlines as well as by their words. Id. § 33.25, at 374. The document must be construed as a whole. Id. at 374-75. Where the meaning is doubtful, the practical construction of the plat by the parties will be accepted. . . . Id. at 375. [T]he court may consider representations made by those making the plat as well as their subsequent conduct. Id. at 376. Within reasonable limits, the court will construe a dedication as to benefit the public rather than the donor. Id. Where the plat or map is complete and unambiguous, parol evidence is inadmissible. Id. at 377. If the plat or map is uncertain and ambiguous, parol evidence is admissible. Id. In such a case, surrounding circumstances and even extrinsic evidence may be considered for the purpose of determining the real intention of the plattor. Id. If the intent to dedicate is to be gathered from writings, they must clearly manifest the intent to dedicate. Id. § 33.36, at 413-14. The Hershes' 1996 subdivision plan does not clearly and unequivocally manifest their intent to rededicate the paper street for public use. See infra App. D. Although the plan shows the paper street, as well as the Plonskis' one-rod right of way, it refers to both of these as rights of ways. It does not refer to the paper street as a proposed street or a public street, but as a right of way, just as it refers to the Plonskis' private one-rod right of way. See Wright v. Town of Matthews, 177 N.C.App. 1, 627 S.E.2d 650, 659 (2006) (deed that did not specify whether right of way was private or public did not constitute offer to dedicate public right of way). At best, the plan shows the paper street to demonstrate the location of one of the boundaries of Lot 2 of the Hershes' proposed subdivision. [S]imply placing a line or a mark on a plat or delineating a way or a street for boundary purposes is insufficient to establish conclusively the original owner's intent to offer the property for dedication. 11A McQuillin, supra § 33.30, at 396. The Hershes' 1998 boundary line adjustment plan similarly refers to the paper street and to the one-rod right of way as right[s] of way(s). See infra App. E. Thus, it too fails to clearly and unequivocally manifest the Hershes' intent to dedicate the paper street for public use. We next address whether the Goodwins' 1987 subdivision plan clearly and unequivocally manifested their intent to rededicate their half of the paper street for public use. This plan, like the Hershes' 1996 subdivision plan and 1998 boundary line adjustment plan, refers to the one-rod right of way and the paper street as rights of ways and thus, on its face, does not clearly and unequivocally manifest the Goodwins' intent to dedicate the paper street for public use. See infra App. C. We therefore conclude, as a matter of law, that the Hershes' 1996 subdivision plan, their 1998 boundary line adjustment plan and the Goodwins' 1987 subdivision plans did not rededicate the paper street for public use. Because these plans did not rededicate the paper street for public use, selling lots pursuant to them also did not constitute rededications of the paper street for public use. Although the Plonskis assert that the Hershes' 1996 subdivision plan, their 1998 boundary line adjustment plan and the Goodwins' 1987 subdivision plan referred to the paper street in exactly the same way as did the 1928 subdivision plan, they are mistaken. Unlike the other plans, the 1928 subdivision plan did not refer to the paper street as a right of way and did not depict the one-rod right of way. Affirmed.