It appears to me there is confusion as to who owns the Alley.  I have never seen a deed transferring the Alley to the Subdivision from the developer.  If the reliance is on the plat and indenture then Parkview has an easement for use of the alley, they do not own it, but have a right to use it. 

Here are the what the Agents who represent Parkview (simply referred to as “Agents”) claim with what we have discovered.  This based off of the Q&A supplied by the Agents.

The agents contend that, unlike the rest of Parkview, the Westgate alley was/is the sole possession of the Beredith Realty Company (the Parkview Neighborhood). The evidence as stated is from a plat map from some time after 1959.  This plat map is not a current survey nor a survey from the 1926 era when the development of the neighborhood was finished.  I am not sure why it was chosen.  A current survey should be made.  Apparently, There is a difference between the way the Westgate alley was drawn and the way the rest of the neighborhood alleys were drawn that the agents contend supports their theory. 

Claim:  One point they contend is that it is marked “private alley” similar to the other Parkview owned “private walk” and dissimilar to the other alleys in Parkview.

This claim’s accuracy is in doubt.  All the alleys are marked as on the 1905 plat map are marked as “Private Alleys”.  Here is an example from where you can clearly see the alley between Pershing (labeled Berlin)  and Waterman is marked as “Private Alley”, the same as the alley behind Westgate.  The part that is owned by Parkview is on Southern edge (left side of map) of the neighborhood labeled “Strip 15′ wide reserved by Beredith Realty Co.”  clearly labeled different from the other private alleys.

The other reason this claim is not accurate is evidenced when you look at references to “private alley” in the indentures.

“Provided, however, and it is hereby expressly agreed that the cost of constructing and reconstructing any Alley or Alleys in said sub-division including the cost of grading, regrading, preparing the roadway for all the superstructure, placing foundation and road-way, and paving of such Alley or Alleys, shall not be included in the annual amount required or permitted to be assessed against the whole sub-division as aforesaid, but whenever said Trustees shall decide to construct or reconstruct any private alley in any Block in said sub-division, they shall estimate or cause to be estimated the total cost of such construction or reconstruction in such Block, and the owner or owners of each lot in such block shall be required to pay in advance on account of such lot, such proportion of said total cost as the frontage of such lot above stated or assumed bears to the total frontage of all the lots in said Block above stated or assumed.”

“CLAUSE H. The Northern boundary of the sub-division here-in-before mentioned or dealt with is the public alley shown on said Plat and extending from Skinker Road to Melville Avenue; the Eastern boundary is Skinker Road; the Southern boundary from Skinker Road to point opposite Lot 13 Block 7 where the right of way of the St. Louis, Kansas City and Colorado Railroad Company is diminished to a width of forty (40) feet is a line which runs parallel with and is distant fifteen (15) feet northwardly from said right of way, and from thence runs westwardly parallel with and twenty-five (25) feet northwardly from the Northern line of said diminished right of way to the Western line of said sub-division; and the Western boundary line of said sub-division is the Western line of the private alley which is shown on the aforesaid Plat as extending from Bonhomme Road or Delmar Avenue to the Southern line of said sub-division along the rear of the lots in Blocks 9 and 8 of said sub-division; and no property outside of said line is intended to be embraced in said sub-division.”

The first reference is using “Private Alley” to describe all alleys in Parkview.  The second reference to “public alley” is to describe the only public alley servicing Parkview.  The third reference and the second using “private alley” is referring to the Westgate alley.  Notice how the indentures used the same phrase, “private alley” to describe all alleys that are contained within Parkview as opposed to the “public alley” not in Parkview.  The statement by the agents appears to be wrong.  We will have to give them a chance to explain these inconsistencies.

Claim: The next point they use to justify Parkview ownership is the dotted line that  down the middle of the alley  is:

“The 1905, 1911 Amended Plat, and the St. Louis County Plats show the Westgate lots terminating at the “Private
Alley 15’ W, 535’ L.” In contrast, the same plats show Parkview’s interior lots terminating in the middle of the alleys behind those houses (and as such, those homeowners are being assessed for the alley repair).”   –  from the Q&A supplied by the agents.

This claim is not accurate either.  The straight line down the middle of the alley is the only difference in the way the Westgate vs interior lots are drawn.  The plats show Parkview’s interior lots terminating with a dotted line at the edge of the alley with a straight line down the middle of the alleys behind those houses.  The Westgate houses show the same dotted line terminating lots.  The reason the straight line down the middle of the ally does not exist is because Westgate does not share their alley with an adjacent neighbor so there is no reason to divide the alley – the entire alley is included in the lot.   Notice how all the houses have a dotted line in the front?  It’s needed to show where neighbors share a border.

The last reason they have given us is that the lots are defined with measurements stated on the plat map.

“As an example on how to read the plats, Lot 5 in Block 8 (337 Westgate) is defined as a lot
51’1/2” wide at the front and extends back 153’1/2 inches from the inside of the sidewalk to
rear of property – marked by a dashed-line and by “v” marks (circled in red) – and is 50’”  –  from the Q&A supplied by the agents.

I’m not sure what this proves.  Yes you read plats that way.  Are both interior and Westgate lots in this picture are measured that way?  What is the difference I’m looking for?  We should get it measured to see what the interior lot on Center Ave in this picture measures from the interior of the sidewalk to the edge connected to the alley.   Maybe the agents would like to clarify what the point is here.

A. So far we have been given no valid reason to believe the Westgate alley’s alleged ownership should be treated any different than the rest of the private alleys in the neighborhood.  If there is more evidence to support their ownership claim, it has not been presented yet.

So far, only some of the residents who have encroached on the easement in Block 8.
However, this does or could affect all residents on Westgate.  They sent this agreement only to the residents who have encroached on the easement right now but the decisions made now will affect all Westgate residents going forward.

No

There was a statement by the President of the Parkview Agents that we could wait until we wanted to move our fence and then sign. He appears to be saying that they will not approve fence permits without a signature.  I am not sure if this applies on fence permits for fence lines that have already been permitted and moved in the past.

Yes, it was established that the agreement is negotiable. If you disagree with the agreement, do not sign it as is. At the 7/26 meeting a resident had issue with a minor part of the agreement and the Agents agreed to omit that section for the resident. They appear to be negotiating on a case by case basis to get signatures. At a minimum, we should renegotiate the agreement as a group and establish a norm moving forward.

All existing structures and improvements that were built in the past on the easement will be grandfather claused.

After a brief conversation with a lawyer it appears there may be legal remedies that apply; however, litigation would likely be necessary to pursue them.  The agents position is that it does not apply.  We are checking into this.

There are 2 quitclaims that were filed at the end of the development of our neighborhood in 1926.  We were told by the lawyer for the Agents that they basically state that any unsold land would revert back to the ownership of the “Real Estate Company”.  The Agents have not supplied copies of these quitclaims and whether the Westgate easement land could be included as an unsold lot has yet to be determined.  If it was never intended for sale, it is hard to argue that it was an unsold lot.  I am not sure why these quitclaims apply and we have not seen them.  Another issue for a lawyer.

A.  The owner of the property. If the neighborhood is the owner, they are liable and responsible for the maintenance. if the adjacent homeowner is the owner, they are responsible for the maintenance.
The neighborhood contends that they are the sole owner, which would make them responsible for the maintenance.  We know that the indentures state that the Agents cannot erect or dismantle any alley without permission from the adjoining owners.
As per the indentures that they can mow and trim any park or easement.
What other improvements or maintenance agreements they are capable of has yet to be determined.  There may be a stated use for this land in the indentures, e.g. for a only an alley.

I don’t know.  If they own the easement and are legally able to negotiate a temporary use agreement with us, there is nothing to say that they could not enter a similar agreement with another party.
Whether or not the indentures address this irregularity has yet to be determined.  There may be a stated use for this land, e.g. for a only an alley.
There could be a stated use for that land in the indentures.
This is a good follow up question and maybe one for a lawyer representing the residents.

Yes, while Ameren’s easement is to place the poles on the side lot lines and not in the middle of the alley, the agents have done nothing to enforce that easement. There is no evidence that they will enforce the easement in the foreseeable future. Signing a temporary use agreement will not guarantee enforcement. Maybe this protection should be built into the agreement.

If the Parkview owns it, yes. The agents claim no but when the metrolink was built the lots on Pershing were given use of the easement and a sound wall was erected. This resulted in almost 5 additional feet getting added to their lots. The agents contend that a similar temporary use agreement was used with the Pershing residents. We have contacted residents of Pershing who do not remember having to sign a similar agreement with Parkview. They are double checking for us. If one was used it should be on record with the Agents. This may be the template we follow. We are also researching if Parkview has the ability to sell land it owns.

Yes, if the neighborhood owns the alley, they are responsible for the maintenance and added liability. A cost analysis should be performed.

If the adjoining lot owner is either the owner, co-owner, or a if maintenance agreement is reached them them, NO, it will not cost the neighborhood anything. The adjoining lot owner would be responsible for maintenance and liability.

Yes

We know of 1 lot that is under some kind of agreement but not this agreement.  That lot signed a different agreement last year when they moved their fence.  We do not know the terms of this agreement. They have received this new agreement.

Yes. As referenced in the Q&A. I believe they are already revoking the agreement they had last year by sending that homeowner already under agreement this new agreemtent.

Yes, easements and other stake holders should be listed on your survey. We have collected a sample group of surveys from Westgate lot owners. None of them list Parkview as having title. Parkview has not shown us a title to that property.

No, we have not seen one. We have seen multiple surveys from Westgate Ave lot owners that were done when their titles were researched that include the alley as part of their lot.