Cottage Hill Land Corp. v. City of Mobile
Decision Date | 04 November 1983 |
Parties | COTTAGE HILL LAND CORPORATION and Riley Smith v. CITY OF MOBILE. 82-656. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Robert M. Montiel of Montiel, White & Grogan, Mobile, for appellants.
William R. Lauten, Mobile, for appellees.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether or not there was a dedication and acceptance of the right of way for a future thoroughfare that appeared on a recorded subdivision plat.
The appellants, Cottage Hill Land Corporation (Cottage Hill) and Riley Smith, one of Cottage Hill's corporate officers, filed a complaint naming as defendant the City of Mobile. In the complaint, as amended, plaintiffs alleged an unlawful taking of Cottage Hill's property without compensation and prayed for appropriate damages. The circuit court granted the city's motion for summary judgment and this appeal followed. We affirm. The facts of the case are basically as follows:
Cottage Hill owned a piece of property located within the city limits and made the necessary arrangements to have the land subdivided. A plat of the land, designated as Bridlewood Estates, was submitted by Cottage Hill to the Mobile City Planning Commission for approval. Before giving its approval, however, the planning commission required Cottage Hill to designate on the plat the southernmost border of Bridlewood Estates, approximately four subdivision lots, as "Future Thoroughfare 100' R/W." (See Appendix A.) This right of way for a proposed major thoroughfare for the city had been originally placed on the city's master plan in the late 1940's.
With the right of way, as shown in Appendix A, clearly delineated, the plat was approved and Cottage Hill commenced selling lots and building single family dwellings on the individual homesites in Bridlewood Estates. All forty-six lots listed on the plat were sold during 1958 and 1959.
The developers assert that they have at no time received any compensation or payment from the appellee city for the taking, reservation, or use of the land designated on the plat as a future thoroughfare. They further assert that the reserved land in question is neither an ingress to nor an egress from Bridlewood Estates, and that it is not otherwise used by the owners of lots in the subdivision to gain access to their lots, and that the city has not built a road on the reserved right of way. Although the developers claim the land is presently nothing more than raw, undeveloped land which, but for the reservation, the corporation could have developed and sold, no legal action was commenced prior to 1981 by either Cottage Hill or its officers.
The city contends that the developers have no further interest in the property or right to recover any compensation from it because the land designated in the plat as a future thoroughfare was irrevocably dedicated to the public when the plat was recorded in the probate office on February 7, 1958, and the lots comprising the subdivision were later sold.
Dedications may be classified as either express or implied, and can be either of the common law or the statutory variety. McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, § 33.03 (3d ed. revised 1971); Sam Raine Construction Co., Inc. v. Lakeview Estates The filing of a map or plat "in substantial compliance with the statutory requirements constitutes a valid dedication to the public of all streets, alleys, and other public places." Johnson v. Morris, 362 So.2d 209, 210 (Ala.1978). Under early Alabama statutory authority, streets indicated on a recorded and acknowledged plat were considered to be dedicated to the public use without awaiting acceptance or use by the public. See Code 1907, § 6030; Manning v. House, 211 Ala. 570, 573, 100 So. 772, 774 (1924). This is no longer true, however. See Code 1975, § 11-52-32(b). Acceptance of a proffered dedication is necessary. McQuillin, supra, § 33.43; Tuxedo Homes v. Green, 258 Ala. 494, 497-498, 63 So.2d 812, 814 (1953).
407 So.2d 542, 544 (Ala.1981); Stack v. Tennessee Land Company, 209 Ala. 449, 451, 96 So. 355, 357 (1923). Statutory dedications are necessarily express, while common law dedications may be either express or implied. McQuillin, supra, § 33.03.
In the instant case, there was nothing on the face of the plat from which the circuit court could have concluded that Cottage Hill intended to condition the dedication of the right of way or otherwise reserve its dedication. See e.g. City of Birmingham v. Graham, 202 Ala. 202, 79 So. 574 (1918); Sims v. City of Birmingham, 256 Ala. 540, 55 So.2d 833 (1951). Consequently, the recorded plat is its own full and complete evidence of the dedication by Cottage Hill of the right of way encompassed by the proposed thoroughfare. Manning v. House, supra, 211 Ala. at 573, 100 So. at 774.
This Court has ruled that acceptance of a dedication of land may be shown by long public use, or by acts, either formal or otherwise, of corporate or other public officers recognizing and adopting the property for the public's use. Oliver v. Water Works & Sanitary Sewer Bd., 261 Ala. 234, 236, 73 So.2d 552, 553 (1954); Stringer Realty Co. v. City of Gadsden, 256 Ala. 77, 80, 53 So.2d 617, 619 (1951). The developers admit that the three streets designated on the plat as Rand Court, Janwood Drive, and Angus Drive have been dedicated and accepted by both the city and public for public use; thus, the unresolved question is whether there has been an acceptance of the proposed thoroughfare right of way.
In determining what property is dedicated to the public, the map or plat is to be construed in its entirety. Johnson v. Morris, supra, 362 So.2d at 210. From the specific circumstances of this case, the Court concludes that the circuit court was authorized to find that "every line of the survey which served to mark those parts of the site which were intended to be reserved from sale for use of the public became unalterably fixed, dedicated to the public for all time" once lots were sold with reference to the Bridlewood Estates subdivision plat. Snead v. Tatum, 247 Ala. 442, 443, 25 So.2d 162, 163 (1946); Webb v. City of Demopolis, 95 Ala. 116, 126, 13 So. 289, 292 (1891). Furthermore, this dedication has been perfected despite the fact that the city has not yet constructed a public roadway on the property platted and dedicated as a future thoroughfare.
In Smith v. City of Opelika, 165 Ala. 630, 51 So. 821 (1910), the Court stated:
The developers argue that in requiring land be set aside for the future thoroughfare, the city should have adhered to §§ 11-52-50 through 11-52-54, which prescribe procedures for the reservation of lands in subdiv...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kilmartin v. Barbuto
...567 So.2d 1260, 1263 (Ala. 1990); Glass v. Carnes, 260 Ga. 627, 632, 398 S.E.2d 7, 11 (1990); Cottage Hill Land Corp. v. City of Mobile, 443 So.2d 1201, 1202 (Ala. 1983). By and large, both common law dedications and statutory dedications are carried out through a two-step process. Wright v......
-
Kilmartin v. Barbuto
... ... stretch of land running east to west and bordering the shore ... Meyer v. City of Newport , 844 A.2d 148, 151 (R.I ... (1990); Cottage Hill Land Corp. v. City of Mobile , ... 443 ... ...
-
Kilmartin v. Barbuto
...Inc., 567 So. 2d 1260, 1263 (Ala. 1990); Glass v. Carnes, 260 Ga. 627, 632, 398 S.E.2d 7, 11 (1990); Cottage Hill Land Corp. v. City of Mobile, 443 So. 2d 1201, 1202 (Ala. 1983). By and large, both common law dedications and statutory dedications are carried out through a two-step process. ......
-
Kilmartin v. Barbuto
...567 So.2d 1260, 1263 (Ala. 1990); Glass v. Carnes, 260 Ga. 627, 632, 398 S.E.2d 7, 11 (1990); Cottage Hill Land Corp. v. City of Mobile, 443 So.2d 1201, 1202 (Ala. 1983). By and large, both common law dedications and statutory dedications are carried out through a two-step process. Wright v......
-
Alabama law of dedication and reservation: it's a good thing: Beachcroft Properties, LLP v. City of Alabaster.
...Bd., 73 So. 2d 552 (Ala. 1954)). (3) 77 AM. JUR. 3D Proof of Facts [section] 1 (1988). (4) Cottage Hill Land Corp. v. City of Mobile, 443 So. 2d 1201, 1203 (Ala. (5) This Note will analyze Beachcroft as a regulatory taking under the balancing test established by the Court in Penn Cent. Tran......