Court Opinion

ID: 9603513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:06:53.081296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:12.371575
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
dissenting.
Although I am not in complete accord with the rationale for its decision, I would affirm the district court in this case. Its conclusion that the abutting landowners own the minerals lying under the streets *100and alleys in the Town of Moorcroft is eminently correct under Wyoming law and the recognized law from other jurisdictions. Except to the extent that the majority opinion reaffirms City of Evanston v. Robinson, 702 P.2d 1283 (Wyo.l985), declining the invitation to overrule that case, I respectfully dissent. I would hold that Lincoln Land Company conveyed title to the center of each street and alley to the abutting landowners, and, as a matter of law, those abutting landowners possess the mineral estate to the center of the street or alley since Lincoln Land Company did not reserve or except minerals in its conveyances.
The Supreme Court of Illinois put the matter succinctly in Prall v. Burckhartt, 299 Ill. 19, 132 N.E. 280, 18 A.L.R. 992 (1921). It was argued in that case that the legislature could not dispose of the rever-sionary interest of a dedicator in the land within the dedicated plat because legislative action such as that would constitute a deprivation of property without due process of law. The Illinois Supreme Court, in rejecting the argument, said:
“ * * * After the dedicator has executed and recorded the plat in conformity with the statute and there has been an acceptance, he has neither a reversion nor a possibility of reverter in the streets. He has completely disposed of all of his interest. When, then, the street is after-wards vacated, the dedicator, having no interest of any kind therein, is not deprived of any property without due process of law. The proprietor, by reason of dedicating a part of the premises for streets, enhances the value of the lots to which such streets give access. His grantees pay the enhanced value, and the proprietor thereby receives a consideration not only for the precise amount of the land described in each lot, but also, in effect, for that embraced in the street upon which the lots abut. Having been once paid for the land embraced in a street, he ought not to be permitted, on vacation, to assert title thereto as against one who has paid him the consideration therefor.” Prall v. Burckhartt, supra, 132 N.E. at 284.
This rule clearly is the law in Wyoming. If the Town of Moorcroft were to vacate the dedicated streets and alleys, the abutting landowners would receive title to the surface estate. Section 34-12-109, W.S.1977; Thomas v. Jultak, 68 Wyo. 198, 231 P.2d 974 (1951); Tissino v. Mavrakis, 67 Wyo. 560, 228 P.2d 106 (1951). Cf. Gay Johnson’s Wyoming Automotive Service Company v. City of Cheyenne, 367 P.2d 787 (Wyo.1961), reh. denied 369 P.2d 863 (Wyo.1962). Section 34-12-109, W.S.1977, manifests the legislative decision that, in the event of a vacation of an area in a dedicated plat, the abutting landowners, not the dedicators and not the city, have the strongest claim to the area vacated.
The rule really is quite straightforward. The mineral estate is not transferred by the dedication and is retained in favor of the abutting landowner to the center of a dedicated street or alley. If the owner of the platted land has not conveyed the abutting property, he owns the minerals; if the owner of the platted property has sold it, his grantees own the minerals.
This rule lead ineluctably to the decision in City of Evanston v. Robinson, supra. In that case, we held that a statutory dedication conveyed a determinable fee in the surface estate to the city. The holding was compatible with the rationale of our prior decisions, as well as with the reasoning of courts in other jurisdictions that have adopted language in their statutes similar to that found in the Wyoming statutes relating to the interest that is conveyed by the “acknowledgement and recording” of a plat. Section 34-12-104, W.S.1977. See, e.g., Ruby Drilling Company, Inc. v. Billingsly, 660 P.2d 377 (Wyo.1983); Payne v. City of Laramie, 398 P.2d 557 (Wyo.1965); Tissino v. Mavrakis, supra; Mochel v. Cleveland, 51 Idaho 468, 5 P.2d 549 (1930); Sowadzki v. Salt Lake County, 36 Utah 127, 104 P. 111 (1909); City of Leadville v. Bohn Mining Company, 37 Colo. 248, 86 P. 1038 (1906). Cf. Morad v. Brown, 549 P.2d 312, 316 (Wyo.1976) (“a dedication conveys an easement in the people to use the streets and alleys * * * ”). These decisions manifest the rule that, following the *101dedication, the dedicator retains a fee simple in the land, including the mineral estate, subject to the determinable fee in the surface estate owned by the city.
Thus, in City of Leadville v. Bohn Mining Company, supra, the Supreme Court of Colorado held that a lessee from the dedicator could mine underneath the streets as long as the mining did not interfere with the use by the public or the municipality of the streets as highways. See, generally, 2 B. Elliott & W. Elliott, Roads and Streets § 876.1 at 1142-1143 (4th ed. 1926). I emphasize that the facts in City of Leadville v. Bohn Mining Company, supra, demonstrate that title to the abutting land and that horizontal estate underlying the streets was retained by the dedicator. Hypothetically, in this instance, Lincoln Land Company did own the horizontal estate beneath the streets and alleys up until the time it conveyed the abutting land to other persons. At the time of conveyance, it had the opportunity to except or reserve the mineral estate in the deeds. If it had not conveyed the land or had reserved the mineral estate, I would agree that Lincoln Land Company and its successors in interest should receive any proceeds from the recovery of oil underlying the dedicated streets and alleys.
The record does not justify any claim of an excepted or reserved mineral estate in favor of Lincoln Land Company. Instead, the record clearly shows that, subsequent to the dedication, Lincoln Land Company conveyed the land abutting the dedicated areas by various deeds. The conveyances describe the property in terms of lots and blocks, and none of those deeds includes any reservation of a mineral estate. The general rule is that “a conveyance by lot and block, and by reference to a map or plat which locates the premises on a public highway, street, or alley, carries title to the center of the way if the grantor owns so much, unless an intention to the contrary sufficiently appears.” 12 Am.Jur.2d Boundaries § 48 at 587 (1964); 11 C.J.S. Boundaries § 35 at 583-584 (1938); see also Shaw v. Johnston, 17 Idaho 676, 107 P. 399 (1910) (cited in Payne v. City of Laramie, supra, as consistent with Wyoming law). Cf. Coumas v. Transcontinental Garage, 68 Wyo. 99, 230 P.2d 748 (1951) (recognizing the general rule but holding it to be inapplicable in the facts of that particular case).
It also is generally accepted that a conveyance of any parcel of land, without reserving or excepting the mineral estate, passes title to both the surface and mineral estate, if both are owned by the grantor. 38 Am.Jur.2d Gas and Oil § 14 at 493-494 (1968). Cf. Holland v. Windsor, 461 P.2d 47, 51 (Wyo.1969) (any exception from the estate owned “should be as clearly described as the parcel granted * * * ”). The result from applying these general rules is that Lincoln Land Company conveyed its entire interest in the dedicated streets and alleys to the center of the street or alley to the abutting landowners, including its interest in the mineral estate. The abutting landowners took subject only to the determinable fee in the surface estate of the dedicated area, which previously had been conveyed to the Town of Moorcroft.
It follows that the holding in the majority opinion that the mineral estate was retained by the dedicator, Lincoln Land Company, for the benefit of its successors cannot be supported and is wrong. It is inconsistent with City of Evanston v. Robinson, supra, and other Wyoming cases. The decision of the district court should be affirmed in accordance with the appropriate and generally recognized rules of law.