Point taken regarding the Plat Act. In New York, where I got my education in land titles, virtually all rights-of-way are held by easement rather than title, though there are titled roads, largely serving to confuse the issue. In any case, various New York roads are owned by the State, the counties, and the municipalities into which the counties are divided (cities, towns (i.e., what would be townships in most areas), and villages). When the State determines it no longer has need of a former state highway, it abandons it to the county. When the county decides it no longer finds a road of value to the county highway system, it abandons it to the local municipality. Only when the town (or rarely the village or city) abandons a dedicated road as no longer useful – which can only be done when there is no permanent residence or year-round business on it – does it pass to private holders. The laws on this are interesting – it will pass to the adjacent landowners along the center line of the right-of-way, unless the act of abandonment calls for its sale (e.g., a “paper street” that ends in waterfront property may net the community significant income if sold rather than simply abandoned). Whoever may have been involved in the dedication of the road and what their title might be does not enter into it – it’s deemed to be the property of the adjacent property owners, up to the midline of the ROW as appropriate. However, any property owner dependent on the road-to-be-abandoned for access to his property may reserve an easement, which means that property owners between him and the surviving public roads must permit him access across their lands along the abandoned right-of-way. They are entitled to gate it, and even lock the gate provided they give him a key, to prevent public use of it, but may not block his access.
When a bank or mortgage or trust company has interest in land through a financing mechanism, title may get interesting. From my experience, it works like this: When title is subject to a mortgage lien, title vests in the mortgagor (the person buying the land, who gave a mortgage on it to the bank to get the loan the mortgage secures). The mortgagee (bank or finance company) has a lien on the property, which may not be sold without discharging the loan that the mortgage secures. In the event of non-payment or other rare occurrences, the mortgagee can foreclose, meaning that they can force the property to be sold to discharge the loan, any sums above what is owed being paid to the landowner.
However, when land is held under deed of trust, something quite different occurs. Say Mr. and Mrs. Smith buy a house from Mr. Sanders, financed by the Shylock National Bank. The paperwork is completed, title search and all the other necessary paraphenalia are in place, and they close. Up pops Tex Holdem, Esq. (I wanted to use Dewey, Cheathem, & Howe, Perelman’s attorneys, but our own Dewey preempted the name.) Sanders signs off on the property, and a Deed of Trust is written – but not to the Smiths. Rather, they are the beneficiaries of a trust created by the deed, to which Tex and the bank are also parties. The agreement reads that Tex holds the property as trustee for the term of the deed of trust, or a shorter period as specified by clauses in the deed. Tex will sell the property to pay off the loan advanced by the Shylock National Bank if the Smiths default on their payments, there being specific terms under which they may correct that default, and he will pay them any sum above the value of the loan. If the Smiths pay off the loan, either at the end of the term of the deed of trust or early if that is permitted by its terms, then he will sign over clear title to them. But Tex holds title to the Smiths’ home, not in his own right but as trustee, until that loan is discharged one way or another.