Rainier Ave. Corp. v. City of Seattle

• Citation: 80 Wn.2d 362,494 P.2d 996
• Decision Date: 16 March 1972
• Docket Number: No. 41632,41632
• Parties: The RAINIER AVENUE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Respondent, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation, Appellant, T. M. Elliott, Intervenor.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington

Page 362

80 Wn.2d 362

494 P.2d 996

The RAINIER AVENUE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Respondent, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation, Appellant, T. M. Elliott, Intervenor.

No. 41632.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

March 16, 1972.

Rehearing Denied June 6, 1972.

A. L. Newbould, Corporation Counsel, C. Grant Wilcox, Donald H. Stout, Asst. Corp. Counsels, Seattle, for appellant.

John F. Raymond, Seattle, for respondent.

NEILL, Associate Justice.

This is the second appeal in a quiet title action wherein plaintiff/respondent claims vacated portions of streets as successor in interest of the dedicators of a plat.

The first appeal was from a dismissal at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case. Rainier Ave. Corp. v. Seattle, 76 Wash.2d 800, 459 P.2d 40 (1969). We reversed and granted a new trial. At the second trial, judgment was entered quieting title to the subject property in the plaintiff. Defendant city of Seattle appeals.

The facts are detailed in the first appeal (Rainier Ave. Corp. v. Seattle, supra) and a brief summary will suffice for present purposes. In September, 1891, Frank D. Black and his wife, Kate, filed a plat of Columbia Supplemental No. 1, a subdivision in King County. The plat contained dedications for public uses, including Columbia Park, Park Drive (later named Edmunds Place), and a portion of Rainier Avenue. Rainier Avenue as platted followed a curving route through the subdivision. As originally platted, Columbia Park consisted of a substantial area traversed by Rainier Avenue and Park Drive (now Edmunds Place). A sketch of the portion of the original plat reproduced here illustrates the juxtaposition of the streets and park or parks which are here involved and the lettering designating the park area.

In May, 1892, King County vacated the triangular area of Columbia Park lying northeast of Rainier Avenue. In 1912 the city of Seattle, having annexed the area, initiated a plan to realign and straighten Rainier Avenue. This resulted in condemnation of the southwesterly portion of the vacated part of Columbia Park and the vacation of a portion of Rainier Avenue as originally platted. Thus, present Rainier Avenue includes a portion of Rainier Avenue as originally platted.

In 1957, the city of Seattle vacated Park Drive (Edmunds Place). The area here in dispute consists of the vacated portions of Rainier Avenue and the northerly portion of the west fork of vacated Park Drive (Edmunds Place).

Plaintiff originally relied upon two theories, to-wit: an 'abutter's rights' theory and a 'successor in interest to the dedicator' theory. It abandoned the abutter theory at the first trial. On the first appeal we remanded the cause for a new trial on the plaintiff's theory that it has succeeded to the dedicators' title by reason of mesne conveyances. The issue thus presented to the trial court, and now before us, of necessity involves a determination of the quantum of title held by the dedicators following the filing of the plat.

Upon retrial, the trial court found the evidence introduced by the plaintiff established a complete chain of title from the dedicators to the plaintiff and held that the vacated streets reverted to the dedicators and their successors in interest.

On this appeal the city contends that, as trustee in behalf of the public, it holds a determinable fee to the Columbia Park property abutting the disputed area; and that the vacated streets attach to the abutting park property.

In support of this contention, the city argues that the dedicators failed to reserve the fee to the streets in the dedicatory language of the plat; therefore, nothing passed to the successors in interest of the Blacks by the mesne conveyances. We do not agree.

No language is required in the dedication of streets for public use to reserve the fee to the dedicators. Bradley v. Spokane & Inland Empire RR Co.,79 Wash. 455, 140 P. 688 (1914).

The city cites RCW 58.08.015 as authority for its contention that the park dedication granted a determinable fee to the city for the public use. The statute provides:

Every donation or grant to the public, or to any individual or individuals, religious society or societies, or to any corporation or body politic, marked or noted as such on the plat of the town, or wherein such donation or grant may have been made, shall be considered, to all intents and purposes, as a quitclaim deed to the said donee or donees, grantee or grantees, for his, her or their use, for the purposes intended by the donor or donors, grantor or grantors, as aforesaid.

This statute does not purport to constitute a dedication as conveyance of a fee. The quitclaim deed referred to in the statute conveys only the interest intended by the donor or grantor. The statute does not alter the principle expressed in Finch v. Matthews, 74 Wash.2d 161, 167, 443 P.2d 833, 838 (1968):

Since Burmeister v. Howard, 1 Wash. T. 207 (1867), this court has not departed from the rule established in that case, that the fee in a public street or highway remains in the owner of the abutting land, and the public acquires only the right of passage, with powers and privileges necessarily implied in the grant of the easement. Puget Sound Alumni of Kappa Sigma, Inc., v. City of Seattle, 70 Wash.2d 222, 422 P.2d 799 (1967). This rule was applied specifically to a street dedicated to the public through the recording of a plat in Schwede v. Hemrich Bros. Brewing Co., 29 Wash. 21, 69 P. 362 (1902).

We see no reason to adopt a different general rule as to dedications for park purposes. It follows that absent an intent to convey a fee, a dedication for public park purposes creates a public easement only. Nothing in this record shows such an intent; so we consider the city's title to the park area to be a public easement.

Even assuming, as was concluded by the trial court, that plaintiff is vested with the fee in the vacated streets, there remains the question of whether that fee is still encumbered by the easement created by the park dedication.

In construing a plat, the intention of the dedicator controls. This intentions is to be deduced from the plat itself, where possible, as that furnishes the best evidence thereof. Frye v. King County, 151 Wash. 179, 275 P. 547, 62 A.L.R. 476 (1929). We further stated in Frye that, in construing a plat, we are not limited to consideration of words alone. Lines and designations appearing on the plat are also to be considered. Cummins v. King County, 72 Wash.2d 624, 434 P.2d 588 (1967). Also see Mueller v. Seattle, 167 Wash. 67, 8 P.2d 994 (1932). In this connection, it is to be noted that the plat designation of 'Columbia Park' encompasses the dedicated streets.

It is also a salutory rule to resolve doubts against the dedicator, and within reasonable limits, to construe dedications so as to benefit the public rather than the dedicator. E. McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 33.26 (3d ed. rev. 1964). See Tsubota v. Gunkel, 58 Wash.2d 586, 364 P.2d 549 (1961). See also Schaller v. Town of Florence, 193 Minn. 604, 259 N.W. 529 (1935).

The ultimate issue here is whether the dedicator intended to dedicate the park streets independently of the park or whether it was his intent--and better public policy--to recognize that the fee in the area covered by the vacated street is subject to two easements, a public easement for street purposes and a public easement for park purposes. Under such latter construction, a vacation of the street easement leaves the fee subject to the easement for park purposes. The street vacation merely removes that particular burden and leaves the park unencumbered by the street easement, but still in existence as a park.

In approaching the issue of the intent of the dedicator, we should be mindful of the observation made by John F. Dillon in his treatise Commentaries on the Law of Municipal Corporations § 1107 (5th ed. 1911):

In closing our survey of this interesting title (Dedications) we may stop pausefully for a moment to note how impressively the doctrines of our jurisprudence concerning it illustrate their thorough and complete adaptation to the wants and exigencies of civilized society. To meet these, the ordinary rules of law relating to private rights have been modified and moulded by the public convenience and necessities. . . . It may, we think, truly be affirmed, that the doctrines of our law on this subject as fashioned and settled by judicial tribunals, though in many respects seemingly anomalous, are characterized by practical wisdom, and are beneficent in their operation. Rightfully applied they work no injustice to the supposed dedicator, since they draw the line with enlightened and considerate care between a just measure of his rights on the one hand and the rights of the public on the other.

Consideration should be given to the public interest in open spaces, recreation and other benefits of parks in metropolitan areas.

Applying the aforesaid rules to the plat and dedication before us, we conclude that the dedicator intended a single public park, incidentally traversed by access streets. A contrary intent could easily have been expressed in the dedication and reflected in the plat. The fact that both streets and park areas were platted is not, per se, inconsistent with our conclusion. That fact could as well reflect an awareness of a then existing problem in that several courts had held that, absent inclusion of streets at the time of platting...