Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2008

Home

" . February 10, 2008 I Volume 21 No.3 :" " ,Mohan Road was unquestionably dedicated to the public in the dedication deed, the Sunshine landowners did not have a posses- sory interest in it. Therefore, the court found they did not have standing to contest the city's use of the road for a sewer line. How- ever, the court found one landowner's land abutted the southern portion of Mohan Road. The court found that because this portion of road was dedicated in the subdivision plat, that landowner had a right to claim an exclusive utility easement given the language in the plat. The court noted that the sewer line continued down Mohan Road in the area covered by the plat. Because the Sunshine land- owners had a right to bring a claim only on this portion of road, the court addressed Sunshine's argument as to this portion of road only. The court disagreed with Sunshine's argument that the plat gave the subdivision owners the exclusive right to use the road for utilities. The court noted that when streets are dedicated to the public without restriction, that includes "every reasonable method of travel over, under and along the right of way." The court noted that the plat dedicated the street area to the public. The court fur- ther noted that the dedication was made without restriction. The I ( court acknowledged that the plat preserved easements for utilities to the subdivision owners. However, the court found that language did not preclude the public from using the street area for utilities. The plain language did not reserve an exclusive right to utility ease- . ments to the subdivision, the court said. Thus, the court concluded, the city had a right to install utilities because of the deed dedica- tion, so long as the city did not interfere with the subdivisions use of the easement. The court also found for the city on the city's counterclaim for intentional interference of contract. The court noted that to find an intentional interference with a contract certain elements must be met. First, there must be an existence of a contract between the charging party and a third party. Second, the party charged must have knowledge of the contract. Third, the party charged must intentionally and improperly interfere with the contract, and this interference must cause a breach. Finally, there must be result- ing damages. Cyclone argued that the third element was lacking. Cyclone argued that its action in. preventing the construction was proper because it was seeking to protect its property interest. The court noted that good faith interference with a contract is perrnit- ~. ted. However, the court said, a good faith interference requires the actor to: have a legally protected interest; and in good faith assert 9 149