2022 COA 110
Colo. Ct. App.2022Background
- In 1974 a developer dedicated a roadway (West 11th Street) and conveyed three parcels abutting that right-of-way by deeds that did not reserve mineral interests. The city accepted the dedication shortly thereafter.
- The developer later (2019) conveyed whatever mineral interest it retained under 11th Street to Great Northern Properties (GNP), which then sued to quiet title to the minerals under the roadway.
- Extraction Oil & Gas (Extraction) holds oil & gas leases from the abutting parcel owners and argued (via a C.R.C.P. 56(h) question) that the common-law centerline presumption vested the minerals under the street in the abutting owners to the centerline.
- The district court applied the centerline presumption, concluded the abutting owners acquired the mineral estate to the centerline, and entered a final judgment quieting title to the minerals in the two landowners who participated in the case.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals held the centerline presumption may convey mineral interests when its preconditions are met, but remanded to limit the decree to only the participating defendants’ mineral interests and dismiss the claims as to nonparticipating abutting owners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the centerline presumption can convey mineral interests beneath a dedicated right-of-way | GNP: presumption should not apply to minerals; an unambiguous deed conveys only the described surface parcel | Extraction: presumption conveys all interests grantor had beneath the ROW, including minerals | Held: Yes — when the presumption applies it carries all interests the grantor owned under the ROW, including mineral estates |
| What conditions must be satisfied before the centerline presumption applies | GNP: (challenged timing/acceptance and factual predicates) | Extraction: factual predicates satisfied here | Held: Court clarified four preconditions — (1) conveyance of a parcel abutting a ROW; (2) grantor owned the fee under the ROW at the time; (3) grantor conveyed away all property it owned abutting the ROW; (4) no contrary intent on the face of the conveyance; claimant must trace title to the owner of the fee |
| Whether statutory dedication vertically severs the mineral estate so the presumption cannot apply | GNP: statutory dedication severs minerals into a separate parcel not presumptively conveyed | Extraction: dedication does not vertically sever; dedicator retains the contiguous mineral estate and presumption can operate | Held: Dedication does not effect a vertical severance; no material difference between common-law and statutory dedication for presumption’s application |
| Whether the district court’s quiet-title decree was properly scoped | GNP: court should have quieted title in GNP or, alternatively, should not have quieted entire disputed mineral estate in only two participating defendants | Extraction: decree was proper | Held: Court correctly refused to quiet title in GNP, but erred by quieting the entire disputed mineral estate in only two participating owners; remand to quiet title only to the minerals owned by the participating defendants and dismiss claims as to others |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Brien v. Vill. Land Co., 794 P.2d 246 (Colo. 1990) (a general land conveyance without mineral reservation passes underlying minerals)
- Radke v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 334 P.2d 1077 (Colo. 1959) (severance of mineral estate requires clear, distinct wording)
- Overland Mach. Co. v. Alpenfels, 69 P. 574 (Colo. 1902) (conveyance abutting a highway is presumptively to the center of the street)
- Skeritt Inv. Co. v. City of Englewood, 248 P. 6 (Colo. 1926) (recognizing centerline presumption for abutting conveyances)
- Morrissey v. Achziger, 364 P.2d 187 (Colo. 1961) (deeds drawn after street vacation that do not describe the former street do not convey the street)
- Town of Moorcroft v. Lang, 779 P.2d 1180 (Wyo. 1989) (discusses whether statutory dedication creates a vertically severed mineral parcel; split decision discussed)
- City of Leadville v. Bohn Min. Co., 86 P. 1038 (Colo. 1906) (statutory dedication vests city with a limited fee in the surface for municipal uses)
- Enerwest, Inc. v. Dyco Petroleum Corp., 716 P.2d 1130 (Colo. App. 1986) (presumption that a grantor intends to convey the full estate unless expressly excepted)