Opinion ID: 891677
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory Dedication Under Section 3-20-11

Text: {18} Because the City relies on Section 3-20-11 for its argument that fee title to Parcel F vested in the City before Amrep sold Parcel F, we will rely on this section to determine which facts are material for purposes of summary judgment. Under Section 3-20-11, a municipality automatically acquires fee title to land within its territory once a plat that designates the land for public use is endorsed and filed. The City contends that the drainage easement designated on the final recorded plat constitutes a dedication for public use under Section 3-20-11. We disagree. Although drainage undoubtedly can be a public use of property,. . . [m]erely because land can be dedicated to public use[] does not mean it has been. Smith v. Beesley, 226 Ariz. 313, 247 P.3d 548, 556 (App.2011) (finding that drainage easements designated solely for the purpose of drainage on subdivision plat were not for public use); see State ex rel. State Highway Comm'n v. Briggs, 73 N.M. 170, 172, 386 P.2d 258, 259-60 (1963) (The plat . . . as filed and received into evidence certainly did not designate the parking area as an area set aside for public use as required by the statute. It merely designates the area involved as a `parking area.'). Where a subdivision plat does not clearly designate land as set aside for public use, we cannot find the land to have been dedicated under Section 3-20-11. {19} The practical effect of allowing the City to prevail on this claim would be the transformation of a lesser, nonpossessory property interestan easementinto a greater, possessory interestfee titlewithout an indication on the recorded plat of the parties' intent to do so. Section 3-20-11 only operates to vest fee title to a specific property in a municipality where a plat expressly dedicates the property for public use. Although the preliminary plat submitted by Amrep did identify Parcel F as land that will be open space, that preliminary plat was not recorded as required by NMSA 1978, Section 14-9-1 (1991). Moreover, the only dedication in the recorded plat was of the public thoroughfares. The language in the plat abundantly clarifies the grant of a drainage easement for Parcel F, not a more general open space easement. Had the City wanted Parcel F to be dedicated for public use, it could have insisted that Parcel F be dedicated for public use as open space. It did not. {20} There is no genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the VHWU1 recorded plat designates Parcel F for public use. The plat designates Parcel F as a drainage easement and nothing more. Because the VHWU1 recorded plat did not meet this statutory requirement, the City's claim for acquisition of fee title by operation of Section 3-20-11 fails as a matter of law. The district court's grant of summary judgment against the City on this claim was appropriate.