Opinion ID: 1057735
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ownership of Portion of Alley Abutting

Text: Garners' Property 3 In 1905, Miller conveyed the parcels comprising 122 Prince Street to Charles Kircherer. The description of the property placed the eastern boundary line at the centerline of the alley. This description has been used in the subsequent deeds contained in the chain of title to 122 Prince Street. 4 Martin argues the circuit erred in ruling that the Miller deed, under which the Garners claim their title, conveyed title to the centerline of the alley. It is an established rule in Virginia that a conveyance of land bounded by or along a way carries title to the center of the way, unless a contrary intent is shown. Cogito v. Dart, 183 Va. 882, 889, 33 S.E.2d 759, 762 (1945) (the boundary on a way, public or private, includes the soil to the center of the way if owned by the grantor and there are no words or specific descriptions to show a contrary intention); see also Williams v. Miller, 184 Va. 274, 278-79, 35 S.E.2d 127, 129 (1945); Richmond v. Thompson, 116 Va. 178, 184-85, 81 S.E. 105, 107 (1914). This established rule of construction is not limited to public rights-of-way but applies equally to conveyances of property bounded on a private way. Cogito, 183 Va. at 889, 33 S.E.2d at 763. In Williams, we applied the general rule to hold that a grant of land bounded by an abandoned road carried title to the center of the road. 184 Va. at 275-76, 35 S.E.2d at 127-28. In reaching our conclusion, we noted that in describing the property as bounded [o]n the west by the old public road now closed, the deed speaks for itself and contains no limitation. Id. at 278-79, 35 S.E.2d at 128-29 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, there being no language 5 in the deed showing a contrary intent, this general rule must be applied. Id. at 279, 35 S.E.2d at 129. Similarly, the Miller deed unambiguously conveys property bounded by an alley without any reservation or limitation. The deed specifically describes the boundaries of the property as extending to an alley, running north and south and leading into Prince Street, thence south forty four feet four inches. Since there is no language in the deed showing a contrary intent, the Miller deed conveyed title to the centerline of the alley. 4 We reject Martin's contention that the language in the Miller deed granting a right of way over said alley in common with others entitled thereto shows an intention by the grantor to retain ownership of the entire alley. Under the general rule of construction, the Miller deed granted ownership in only four feet of the eight-foot wide alley. In granting a right of way over the alley, the deed conveyed an easement over the four feet retained by the grantor. In fact, Martin's position is inconsistent with the language in the Browne/Robinson deed, which also includes the conveyance of a right of way over the 4 We note that the Brown/Robinson deed, under which Martin claims ownership of the alley, likewise describes his property as running to an alley. Martin has advanced no legal rationale or principled reason as to why this language conveyed any greater ownership rights to the alley than the language contained in the Miller deed. 6 alley. Had the grantor intended to retain ownership of the alley when he conveyed the property in the Miller deed, it would have been unnecessary to include a right of way over the alley in the Browne/Robinson deed. Therefore, we hold the circuit court properly ruled that the Garners own in fee simple up to the centerline of that portion of the alley abutting their property at 122 Prince Street. 5