Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1985 )

,t- .-
The Attorney General of Texas
kay 14. 1985
JIM MAnOX
i
Attorney Generrl
SupmIne court SUlldlng Ronorablc Jerry Cobb Opinion Ro. a-317
P. 0. sax 12545 Criminal Diotrlct Attoroey
Aurm lx 75711.2545 P. 0. Eox 2344 lb?: Whether a comissioners court
5cw752501 Denton. Texas 762C 1 my approve a plat and accept a
le*x Dlom7C1247
road for county maintenance under
lelecoplw 512J47s205
certain conditiona
714 Jwksm. Sull. 700 Dear l4r. Cobb:
OallW, 7x. 752024505
2w742a944
You have rcqueeted our opinion regarding two questions. First,
,ou ask:
.<.
1. Can a commissioners court approve a plat
and accept roade for county maintenance if three
landownercl have not signed tha plat dedicating the
1001 TWW. SIN* 700 .
road to tlro public?
Nausmn, lx 770023111
71Y222-58m It is afaa indiutol that .thrrc are more than three landowners of the
land in the plat. and that the three landovncr~, refusing to sign the
plat, ouu separate :Lots within the plat.
_~ A comisrionar:~~ court -uy. aerclme only ‘mch povers as the
coostitution or thwetatuter lmve opcclficall~ conferred upon them.
Cuulu v. ~Langhlzlu,-214 S.W.2d 451~. ,-453 (Tex.’ 1948). Section
~& l(-
d0
l
) %l87 5702-1 V.t.C.8:.
r tic , mth o r lsee l c o m h sio ner u court
of a m~,twa p p r ~rl:plar-of re ‘a eubdivirlon dadkatiug’roads to the
put&+ by:th;yi.af the ,land subdivIded in the~.pUt;. ‘V.T.C.S. ari.
6702-li~.~112AOl(a), (d). If the .uurmr’oi wnera’df the tract of land
a÷d :.,in the .plat follow the ~speclfied statutory procedure
outlined in seetim 2.401. of articlr.~:6702-1, V.T.C.S., the comic-
sionero court ir rot .authorizad to’-reject the filing of the plat.
Cashnera’ Court v. ?rank’Jester Development Co., 199 S.W.2d 1004.
.~1007 (Tu. civ. Am: - Dallas 19b7.;nit ref’d n.r.e.1 (arkoval of a
pkt &perly ill;4 ia a ninirter~l duty of the co&k&ers court).
Sactfon 2.bOl(b) of article 6702-l. V.T.C.S.. prwides:
(b) The owner of any tract of land . . . vho
may hereafter divide the (I- in tvo or mre parts
for the Inmpose of laying out any oubdiviaion of
any such tract of land . . . or for laying out
suburban lots or building lota, and for the
purpom of laying out rtreetr. rlley or parb, or
p. 1450
-.
Uoaorable Jerry Cobb - ?alr 2 (JM-317) ‘!
other portion8 intmded for public uee . . . ahall
cause a plat to ba_ude thereof. . . . (EmpE
added).
Thir prwfrion requires the %uner’ of the tract of land to be sub-
divided to cause a plat to \I(: made. Although this prwfslon uses the
teru “wrier” in the singular , it must be read in harmony vith the
entire ntatute. See Turnpike Authority v. Shepperd. 279 S.W.Zd 302
(Tu. 1955). -
Section 2.401(c) of article 6702-l provider ae follows:
(c) Every such plat shall be duly acknouledged
by ovnera or proprietor8 of the land, or by some
duly authorized egent of said ovoera or proprle-
tore, in the manner required for acknovledgemcnt
ofeeda . Subject to the provisions contained In
this section, suc’h plat shall be filed for record
and be recorded lo the office of the county clerk
of the county in *hich the land lien. (Emphasie
added)...
Bence, vben eectiorm 2&l(b) -and:.(c) are read together It can be
concluded that the legislature contemplated that there might be more
than one landomer of the tract of land to be subdivided. Therefore,
the comisaloners court is not authorlaed to apprwe a plat which has
been filed vithout all -~of ,the landovners’ rignatures. V.T.C.S art.
6702-l. S2.bOlk).
In addi+oo. you lk vhetber the conisslonem court uy accept
the.toad# on,+he.pkt -for txrun~ maintenance uhen ~the three landowners
baye not rigned &be plat dtxlicatiog thexo+s .tn.the. pablic. Approval
.of: a plat and&ecu tance. of K plat dedicating roada to the public are
. ‘.. wparate .@ lat net .,fmu:tima : of the mmhdner*~
b-9--- court. Cow
tirsiooers’ ,~Court mb Ramk. Jester Develovment .Co.) .s AttoG
General OoLuionSJn-200~.r638 S.W.2d 643 (Fex.
APR. - Waco %62, .a.it %f’d -a.r.e.). In order to effectuate an
lsprese dedication, there must be an intent -to dedicate.; a c-nica-
tian of the intent *cd ‘Ieiilcate;’ and an .acceptance~ of &he land being
dedicatul. See :Pord: V.I. 1Iorm, 592 S.W.2d 385 (Tu. Civ. App:’ -
iexarkana 198xWmriixt..); see also Attorney General Opinion
JM-2.00* The landovner or ovntrt of the tract of land must evidence an
Intent to appropriate the land rbom .in the plat for ecme proper
public purpose. Adams v. Rowleo. 228 S.U.2d 849 (Tex. 1950).
-See- -- The
filing of a pllp or plat ill onl y an offer to dedicate the-streets shorn
thereon to the public. SW 30 Ta. Jur. 3d Dedication $20 (1983). A
comlssionar# court is aG?Eorlred to accept propartp dedicated to the
public. -Cf. Cheeaer~ v. Grocsa, 302 ,S.W.2d 480 (Tex. Civ. App. -
p. 1451
~?L
\- - -
Eonorablc Jerry Cobb - rage :) (Jlt47)
:
Beaumont 1957, no writ); Commissioners’ Court v. Frank Jeerer Develop-
msnt Co., s. Ufthou~~c thrae landmmcro’ signatures. there la
no effective offer or intent to dedicate the land shown on tha plat
sven though these owners own separate tracts of land. We therefore
conclude thet the coliaaio~~ers court say not .eccept these roads for
public mslntenance because ,cbere has beeu no dedicatiou of the roads
to ths public.
You also ask:
2. Can e commhsioner pave a road if the plst
has not been approved if the landowners who have
not dedicated the road sign a waiver?
Since the plat has not ‘been approved by the ccedssioners court,
there can be uo statutory dedication of these roads to tbe public
under Texss 1s~. See V.T.C.5. art. 6702-l. 52.401; see also Attorney
General Opinion Jkl-200. The only methods by which these roads may he
dedicated to the public are through express or implied dedication. A
prior opinion of this officl? explains:
Common-lav dedications are of’ tvo classes -
express and i@ied. . . . In both, it is
necessary that there be an appropriation of the
land by the owner to public use, in the one case,
by some express manifestation of his purpose to
devote the land to public use; in the other. by
some act or cour1w of conduct from vhlch the lav
vould imply such rr~ intent. (Citation mitted).
Attorney General Opinion JM-200 (1984). Unless the waivers executed
by the landowners widena: an intent to dedicate. and the coepis-
sioners court accepts the express or implied dedlcstion of land by
these landowners, tha cordssloners court may not pave thess roads
vith public funds. Id. A waiver is the voluntary or intentional
abandoment or relinqu~hwnt of a known right. See Trlce v. Georgia
liomes Insurance Co., 81 S.U.2d 1055 (Tex. Civ. AK - Amarillo 1935,
no writ). Therefore, a ctmlmlasioners court is authorized to pave a
road if the landowners vha have not signed the plst execute a vsiver
to dedicate the roads to I:be public provided that there has been an
acceptance by the cosmdrsloners court. A coedssioners court
expressly accepts a dedicat:Lon when it votes and ootes the leceptance
In the minutes. Attorney (kneral Opinion m-200.
SUMMARY
Article 6702..!. , sections 2.401(b) and Cc).
V.T.C.S.. prohibit a cownlssion~rs court from
approving a plal: dedicating roads to the public
vlthout the signatures of all the landowners of
p. 1452
Ronorable Jerry Cobb - ?ase 4 W-317)
the trsct to be subdivided. Ror uy a cofmbis-
sioners c o ur ltecq~r: roads for public maintenance
when there has not ‘been sn intent to dedicate by
all tha landovners evidenced by their signature on
the plat. Eouevei: ,, the eoaisslonys court ia
authorized to accel?t the plat snd p&e the roads
dedicated to the public if the landowners, whose
signature does net appear on the plat. have
executed a waive:, evidencing their intent to
dedicate the roads to the public.
JIX HATTOX
Attorney General of Texss
TOMGMRR
First Assistant Attorney Genwal
DAVID R. RICRARDS
Executive Assistsnt Attorney Cineral
ROBERTGRAY
Specks1 Assistant Attorney Gmeral
RICK GILPIR
Chairmen, Opinion Collrnittee
Prepsred by Tony Guillory
Assistant Attorney General
&PPROV%D:
OPINIONMITTXP#
Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Jon Bible
Colin Carl
Susan Garriscm
Tony Guilloq
Jim Mellinger
Jennifer Riggs
Nancy Sutton
p. 1453