Great Northern Properties LLLP v. Extraction Oil and Gas Inc.
2024 CO 28. No. 22SC805. Centerline Presumption—Rule of Property Conveyance—Mineral Rights—Property Dedication.
May 6, 2024
Over 125 years ago, the Supreme Court adopted the “centerline presumption,” a common law rule of conveyance that provides that a “conveyance of land abutting a highway or street is presumed to carry title to the center of that roadway to the extent that the grantor has any interest therein, unless a contrary intent appears on the face of the conveyance.” Asmussen v. United States, 2013 CO 54, ¶ 18, 304 P.3d 552, 557 (citing Olin v. Denver & Rio Grande R.R., 53 P. 454, 455 (1898)). In the decades since the Court decided Olin, it has consistently applied this standard. But the Court has never explicitly addressed the question presented here: When the centerline presumption applies, is the conveyance of land abutting a road or highway presumed to carry title to the centerline of both the surface and the mineral estates beneath a dedicated right-of-way?
A division of the court of appeals answered this question by holding that, when the centerline presumption applies, the conveyance is presumed to carry title to the centerline of both the surface and mineral estates beneath a dedicated right-of-way to the owners of land abutting that right-of-way. Great N. Props., LLLP v. Extraction Oil & Gas, Inc., 2022 COA 110, ¶ 17, 522 P.3d 228, 234. The division also concluded that, for the centerline presumption to apply, the grantor must divest all the property it owns abutting the right-of-way. Id. at ¶ 20, 522 P.3d at 235.
The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the division’s judgment. The Court affirmed the portion of the judgment holding that, when the centerline presumption applies, a conveyance is presumed to carry title to the centerline of both the surface and mineral estates beneath a dedicated right-of-way to the owner of land abutting that right-of-way. But the Court reversed the portion of the judgment concluding that the centerline presumption doesn’t apply unless and until the grantor divests itself of all property it owns abutting a subject right-of-way. The Court held that the centerline presumption applies—irrespective of whether the grantor owns other property abutting the right-of-way—if the party claiming ownership to land abutting a dedicated right-of-way establishes that (1) the grantor conveyed ownership of land abutting a right-of-way; (2) the grantor owned the fee—to both the surface estate and the mineral rights—underlying the right-of-way at the time of conveyance; and (3) no contrary intent appears on the face of the conveyance document.