The endorsement and filing of a plat is a dedication of the land designated on the plat for public use. Such land is public property. Fee vests in the municipality if the dedicated land lies within the boundaries of a municipality.

History: 1953 Comp., § 14-19-10, enacted by Laws 1965, ch. 300; 1973, ch. 348, § 34.

Designation of a subdivided parcel for public use. — Section 3-20-11 NMSA 1978 only operates to vest fee title to a specific property in a municipality where a plat expressly dedicates the property "for public use". City of Rio Rancho v. Amrep Sw., Inc., 2011-NMSC-037, 260 P.3d 414, aff'g in part and rev'g in part, 2010-NMCA-075, 148 N.M. 542, 238 P.3d 911.

Failure to designate a subdivided parcel for public use. — Where a final subdivision plat labeled a ten-acre parcel as a drainage easement, dedicated all public thoroughfares shown on the plat to the municipality and granted the easements shown on the plat, and the plat did not designate the parcel labeled as a drainage easement for "public use", the municipality did not acquire the parcel in fee title by operation of 3-20-11 NMSA 1978. City of Rio Rancho v. Amrep Sw., Inc., 2011-NMSC-037, 260 P.3d 414, aff'g in part and rev'g in part, 2010-NMCA-075, 148 N.M. 542, 238 P.3d 911.

Elements of dedication. — There must be both an offer of dedication by the owner and an acceptance by the city to constitute a complete dedication. An owner of property cannot, simply by making a plat, impose the burden of dedication upon a municipality. The offer of dedication cannot bind the city until it has been accepted. The city's liability by acceptance arises only when it has done some act which unequivocally shows an intent to assume jurisdiction over the property dedicated. Watson v. City of Albuquerque, 1966-NMSC-142, 76 N.M. 566, 417 P.2d 54.

Acceptance required. — Though dedication of land by the owner to public use might bind the dedicator, the county was not bound until there had been an acceptance by the board of county commissioners. State ex rel. Shelton v. Board of Comm'rs, 1945-NMSC-027, 49 N.M. 218, 161 P.2d 212.

Completion of dedication. — Mere filing of a plat of a subdivision in the office of the county clerk did not operate as a complete dedication of the streets shown thereon, acceptance of the offer of the dedication also being required. City of Carlsbad v. Neal, 1952-NMSC-063, 56 N.M. 465, 245 P.2d 384 (1952).

Burden of proof to prove acceptance. — The burden to prove acceptance by the city is met by proof which must be "clear, satisfactory and unequivocal." Watson v. City of Albuquerque, 1966-NMSC-142, 76 N.M. 566, 417 P.2d 54.

Acts by city insufficient to establish acceptance. — The fact that a city has, on an irregular basis, plowed or repaired a street does not, by itself, establish an acceptance by the city. Nor does the use of the right-of-way by the city for collection of garbage or installation of a street sign, or the giving of permission to a utility company to erect poles in the right-of-way under a general franchise or the omission by the city to assess the right-of-way for taxes, by themselves, establish an acceptance by the city. Watson v. City of Albuquerque, 1966-NMSC-142, 76 N.M. 566, 417 P.2d 54.

Effect of conditional language in dedication. — After dedication and acceptance, the land becomes the property of the municipality in fee simple, unless the dedication contains conditional language or a reservation in the grantor of a present or future interest. In other words, there is an absolute gift from the donors to the city unless there is conditional language in the dedication. Wheeler v. Monroe, 1974-NMSC-053, 86 N.M. 296, 523 P.2d 540, appeal dismissed, 419 U.S. 1014, 95 S. Ct. 487, 42 L. Ed. 2d 288.

Modification by dedicator. — A dedication once effectively made by the owner bound him and neither he nor his successors in title could thereafter impair it by filing an amended plat. State ex rel. Shelton v. Board of Comm'rs, 1945-NMSC-027, 49 N.M. 218, 161 P.2d 212.

Parking area not dedicated. — When a recorded plat designated a particular area as a "parking area," but failed to dedicate this area to the public use as per statute, there was no dedication of the parking area. State ex rel. State Hwy. Comm'n v. Briggs, 1963-NMSC-196, 73 N.M. 170, 386 P.2d 258.

Law reviews. — For note, "County Regulation of Land Use and Development," see 9 Nat. Resources J. 266 (1969).

For article, "Existing Legislation and Proposed Model Flood Plain Ordinance for New Mexico Municipalities," see 9 Nat. Resources J. 629 (1969).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 26 C.J.S. Dedication § 22.