Opinion ID: 901064
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the section line was vacated by the appropriate governmental authority.

Text: [¶ 7.] Defendants claim that the section line easement was not vacated because there was no affirmative action by the appropriate governmental authority. The trial court found that the section line was vacated by the Common Council of the City of Rapid City in connection with the approval of the 1978 plat and the subsequent annexation of the Wildwood Subdivision. [¶ 8.] Historically, the section line was established by congressional action. In 1866, Congress declared that: `The right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted.' Costain v. Turner County, 72 S.D. 427, 36 N.W.2d 382, 383 (1949) (quoting § 8, Ch 262, 14 Stat 253, 43 USCA § 932). Thereafter the legislature of the Dakota Territory enacted Ch 33 SL 1870-1871 stating: That hereafter all section lines in this Territory shall be and are hereby declared public highways as far as practicable.... [2] Today SDCL 31-18-1 provides: There is along every section line in this state a public highway located by operation of law, except where some portion of the highway along such section line has been heretofore vacated or relocated by the lawful action of some authorized public officer, board, or tribunal. Every section line shall be sixty-six feet wide with thirty-three feet on each side of the section line. SDCL 31-18-2. [¶ 9.] Neither party disputes that the 1978 plat clearly sets forth a section line and thirty-three feet section line easement dedicated to the public. However, the parties dispute whether the approval of the 1979 plat without the section line easement was sufficient governmental action to extinguish the section line easement. On the 1978 plat, lots 17-21 were drawn but not shown as platted. The 1979 plat depicted the lots as platted and clearly identified the section line running along the southern boundary of lots 19-21 but did not identify the section line easement. Wildwood claims that the approval of the 1979 plat vacated the section line easement shown on the 1978 plat. [¶ 10.] In order for a previously recorded plat to be vacated by filing a new plat, compliance with the statutory requirements set forth in SDCL Ch 11-3 is necessary. SDCL 11-3-20.2 provides: The new plat shall specifically describe all previous plats sought to be vacated including the book and page or document number of all existing plats in the register of deeds office. The new plat shall specifically state that all previous plats so listed are to be vacated in whole or in part. The new plat shall comply with the public highway provisions of § 11-3-17. If a plat is filed and is intended to vacate a previous plat, the register of deeds shall write vacated across that portion of the plat so vacated and make reference on the plat to the volume and page number in which the instrument of vacation is located. SDCL 11-3-18. The 1979 plat is void of any marking vacating the 1978 plat. Furthermore, this Court recently stated in Hofmeister v. Sparks, that the filing of a new plat does not automatically vacate a prior plat. 2003 SD 35, ¶ 4, 660 N.W.2d 637, 639. Another case involving a dispute of whether a section line was vacated was Millard v. City of Sioux Falls, 1999 SD 18, 589 N.W.2d 217. In Millard, the city and county approved a plat which did not show the section line easement. This Court determined that the section line easement still existed because the county had not previously taken steps to vacate it. Id. at ¶ 16. We held that the sectionline easement was created by operation of law and no affirmative action was taken to vacate it. Id. at ¶ 28. [A]bsent annexation, specific affirmative action must be taken by an appropriate government authority to vacate a section-line right-of-way. Id. at ¶ 24. The mere approval of a plat by the county and city is not enough to vacate a section line. Id. at ¶ 16. [¶ 11.] Prior to the City's annexation, the County was the governmental entity with authority to vacate the section line. SDCL 31-18-3. [3] Before a County can vacate a section line, the law requires that the Department of Transportation must grant approval. SDCL 31-3-19. Once approval is obtained from the Department of Transportation, any change shall be noted on the map of the county highway system in the office of the county auditor and on the map in the Department of Transportation. SDCL 31-12-2. Here, there is no evidence of county action to vacate the section line. Therefore, the section line easement was still in existence as depicted on the 1978 plat when the property was annexed by the City in 1984. [¶ 12.] Wildwood asserts that if the section line easement was not vacated prior to annexation, the City's annexation vacated it because the annexation map did not depict a section line right-of-way. The trial court, relying on Hone, determined that the City vacated the section line by annexing the property. 1996 SD 126, 554 N.W.2d 825. We find Hone distinguishable. In Hone, the City of Sioux Falls annexed Country Club Heights in 1952. Id. at ¶ 8. The Court found that prior to the annexation, the City of Sioux Falls had vacated the section line. Id. at ¶ 9. In the present case the section line was not vacated prior to the annexation proceeding. [¶ 13.] Although the annexation map does not show the section line easement, SDCL 9-4-11 only requires a map of the territory. It states: Whenever the limits of any municipality are changed by a resolution of the governing body or by a decree of court it shall be the duty of the mayor or the president of the board of trustees to cause an accurate map of such territory, together with a copy of the resolution or decree duly certified, to be recorded in the office of the register of deeds of the county or counties in which such territory is situated, and thereupon such territory shall become and be a part of such municipality or be excluded therefrom as the case may be. The City submitted a map of the territory, it did not submit a plat of the territory to be annexed. Because the annexation map does not have the detail of a plat, the legal descriptions of the property annexed must be determined by examining the plat filed with the register of deeds for that parcel of property. Thus we must refer to the 1978 and 1979 plat which did not vacate the section line easement. Consequently, when Wildwood was annexed, the section line easement was still in existence. The City could not have vacated the section line easement by annexing Wildwood since the easement was still portrayed on the relevant plat of the property in question. [¶ 14.] To vacate the section line at the time of annexation, there needed to be some affirmative action on the part of the City. In Millard, the Court held that when the property was annexed to the city, the city vacated the section line by the affirmative action of establishing a street where the section line had been. 1999 SD 18, ¶ 23, 589 N.W.2d at 220. In the present case, the City took no action from which to infer that it intended to vacate the section line. We reverse on issue one.