What makes a public street? That issue was before the N.C. Court of Appeals recently, as Matthews landowners challenged a ruling that the town had a public right-of-way across their property. In a decision April 4, the state’s second highest court held that the road in question was never a public street, despite it possibly having been maintained some by the state in the past, being paved by the town, and showing up on state maps as a public street.

The dispute centers on 2.6 acres of land in Matthews owned by Lester and Virginia Wright. The property is bordered on two sides by a road called Home Place. Home Place, in turn, connects to Reverdy Lane, which is unambiguously a public street. The question is whether Home Place is also a public street.

On Oct. 14, 2002, the Wrights e-mailed Robert Brandon, the zoning administrator for Mecklenburg County, contending that the county had issued building permits along Home Place in violation of a county ordinance. In their e-mail, the Wrights contested whether Home Place was a public street. Brandon replied that it was. The Wrights challenged Brandon’s determination before the Matthews Board of Adjustment.

Testifying before the board in February 2004 was Ralph S. Messera, Matthews’ public works director. Messera noted that the town had annexed the property now owned by the Wrights in 1983 and maintained Home Place since 1985. The town paved the road in 1991.

Also presented into evidence by the town was a letter from Garland B. Garrett, Jr., secretary of the N.C. Department of Transportation stating, by its rules, a dedicated easement existed for Home Place. Base upon this and other evidence, the board of adjustment held that Home Place was a public street. A superior court judge affirmed the board’s determination.

The Wrights decided to appeal the determination to the Court of Appeals. The appeals court found considerable fault with the proceedings to date.

“A private right-of-way or street may become a public street by one of three methods: (1) in regular proceedings before a proper tribunal (2) by prescription; or (3) through action by the owner, such as a dedication, gift, or sale,” Judge Robert Hunter said for the appeals court.

“It is unclear from the findings by the Board and order of the trial court by which of these three methods they concluded that Home Place became a public street. Neither the Board nor the trial court made any findings regarding dedication, prescription, or other method of acquiring a public interest in Home Place.”

As Home Place had not been the subject of condemnation, sale or gift, that left dedication and prescription as means for it to have become a public street — if indeed if was a public street at all.

The appeals court found that Home Place had never been expressly dedicated as a public street. The original owners asked the state in 1958 to “take over Reverdy Lane, a rural road running from the south side of Highway 51 at a point about 1.5 miles to the east of Highway 16 for a distance of 1 mile.” Reverdy Lane became SR 3471.

A 1976 state map showed a new alignment for SR 3471, which included Home Place. This map was what ultimately much of the evidence that Home Place was a public street was based upon. The map is apparently in error — a draftsman’s mistake — for documents do not show Home Place being taken into the state system at this time.

“Although there was some evidence that Home Place may have been labeled as part of SR 3471 (Reverdy Lane) on the 1976 Mecklenburg County map and the 1983 urban map for Charlotte, such erroneous labeling by others cannot constitute an express offer of dedication to the public on the part of the property owners,” noted the appeals court.

A claim based upon prescription requires, among other elements, 20 years of continuous usage, in this case, road maintenance. No evidence was presented that the N.C. DOT consistently took care of the Home Place. And the road hadn’t been taken care of by Matthews long enough when the hearing occurred to qualify.

“In conclusion, we determine that the findings made by the Board and the trial court do not support the conclusion that Home Place is a public street. The Town of Matthews did not maintain Home Place for the requisite twenty-year time period to establish prescription,” Hunter wrote.

“Nor can the Town of Matthews’ reliance on an erroneous map create a dedication that was never made.”

The case is Wright v. Town of Matthews, (05-239) and is available online at http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2006/050239-1.htm.

Michael Lowrey is associate editor of Carolina Journal.