[B]URLINGTON — For Donna Jocelyn and her family, selling their New North End home turned into a nightmare when the title company their bank used would not let them close the sale because of arcane land rights held by the city.
Jocelyn’s North Avenue home sits on what’s known as “glebe land,” or land set aside by the British monarchy at the formation of the town of Burlington to produce revenue through leases to support schools and the Church of England, according to city officials.
“Glebe” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “land belonging or yielding revenue to a parish church or ecclesiastical benefice,” and such properties in Vermont are commonly known as lease lands.
After the Revolutionary War, the Vermont Legislature vested glebe lands in the state, and rents collected through leases continued to support schools and churches. A 1947 law allowed municipalities to deed glebe property, but only if the proceeds were kept in trust and the interest used to support schools.
It appears that Burlington stopped collecting rents on glebe lands in 1974, according to city officials. The move was in response to a change in state tax law a few years earlier that stated such rents should be deducted from the property taxes assessed on the land.
Municipalities across the state still hold these residual land rights, but until recently lenders and title companies, at least in Burlington, were satisfied by letters from the city promising not to seek rent from the property owners.
Jocelyn’s attorney, however, told the city that lenders and title companies are increasingly seeking a release of the municipal interests so the homeowner can pass a full fee simple title test.
That scuttled the sale of the Jocelyn home, which was slated to close April 22, according to the family. The disruption ultimately led them to lose out on a condo they were planning to purchase, they said.
“Our only saving grace has been that the buyers were willing to wait,” Donna Jocelyn said.
Their attorney requested that the city approve a quitclaim of the deed for their North Avenue home, which requires City Council approval.
If lenders and title companies start insisting on a termination of municipal rights for glebe land, it could affect hundreds of property owners in the city, according to City Attorney Eileen Blackwood.
An 1810 map of Burlington shows glebe or lease land amounting to hundreds of acres, “with one large group north of Appletree Point, another set of parcels around Rock Point, several smaller parcels scattered through the Old North End and downtown, and two larger school parcels that appear to be in the South End,” according to a memo Blackwood wrote.
In the intervening two centuries, the parcels were broken up, and officials were unable to find a map or inventory of glebe land boundaries in the city. The only way to know if a property is on glebe land is by looking at the deed and tracing it back to the land grants originally made on the King of England’s authority.
For instance, the deed on the Jocelyn home contains the phrase, “This may be lease land, so-called.”
Given that glebe land could complicate the sale of hundreds of properties in Burlington, Blackwood urged the City Council to formulate a policy for relinquishing its residual rights at Monday’s council meeting.
Blackwood said the city should consider the possible value of those residual land rights, though she acknowledged that could be difficult to quantify.
It is possible the city could use its residual rights to “relocate water lines or install pipelines through lease land without having to exercise eminent domain,” Blackwood writes in her memo.
There is also the possibility of asserting mineral or air rights on such properties, Blackwood notes, though it appears the city never had its glebe lands surveyed, which could complicate asserting those rights.
Blackwood said attorneys the city consulted said it should seek some compensation for ceding the residual rights to the lands. Councilor Chip Mason, D-Ward 5, suggested setting a fee that would allow the city to cover the costs of executing a quitclaim. Such a fee would be in addition the proceeds from the quitclaim, which the law requires to be placed in trust for schools.
Tom Ayres, D-Ward 7, whose ward includes the Jocelyn family home, recommended a $25 contribution to the school trust and $25 fee. Blackwood indicated that would likely not be enough to cover the city’s time for executing the quitclaim.
“People who are in situations like the Jocelyn family, who got caught up in this glebe land issue, have been in good faith taxpayers for many, many years,” and so a minimal fee is reasonable, Ayres said.
Ayres’ motion passed without opposition. The new policy should simplify things if title companies or lenders demand quitclaims from the city. They will still need council approval, but with a policy in place, such matters could be approved on the consent agenda.
The measure’s approval was welcome news for the Jocelyn family, who can now sell their home. They said after Monday’s meeting that they plan to live with relatives while they continue their search for a new home.
