Kent McMillan, post: 430873, member: 3 wrote: So, if I'm understanding that, what was conveyed as, say, "Parcel A as shown upon Parcel Map No. ________ recorded in __________" would instead be conveyed as just a metes and bounds tract after the LLA, possibly comprising pieces of Parcel A as shown upon ..."
No, I don't believe you are understanding that. What it means is that every one of the 500+ local agencies in CA have a different "understanding" of what a LLA is and how it is accomplished. Many simply have the deeds for the transfer slivers recorded along with some caveat or supplemental document stating the transfer sliver is for the purposes of a LLA. While others have even more convoluted processes, forms and contents.
clearcut, post: 430878, member: 297 wrote: Many simply have the deeds for the transfer slivers recorded along with some caveat or supplemental document stating the transfer sliver is for the purposes of a LLA. While others have even more convoluted processes, forms and contents.
That sounds like a mess. I guess it would be too simple to amend the original parcel map to reflect the shapes and locations of the parcels after the adjustment so that the parcels could be conveyed by descriptions such as "Parcel A as shown upon the amended Parcel Map No. ___________ recorded ________"
Kent McMillan, post: 430880, member: 3 wrote: That sounds like a mess. I guess it would be too simple to amend the original parcel map to reflect the shapes and locations of the parcels after the adjustment so that the parcels could be conveyed by descriptions such as "Parcel A as shown upon the amended Parcel Map No. ___________ recorded ________"
Unfortunately CA law won't allow that. Parcel map amendments only allow for non-title changes/corrections.
Hopefully changes in the LLA law are forthcoming as I do know there is a committee formed with that task. It is headed by San Diego's city surveyor. Unfortunately he has indicated he is still looking at it as a land planning/development process and is not open to recognizing the need for a process addressing clarification of title. His bureaucratic background won't allow him the vision to address it as an unconditioned process for clearing clouds of title. As such I"m refrained from being optimistic
I agree that the different interpretations by various local agencies make the LLA process confusing, but in my area the the C of C process seems to work in shifting the title chain over to the new descriptions. It would be possible for someone to later convey according to the superseded Parcel Map, and that would surely bollix things up. But they'd almost certainly have to effect that transfer without benefit of title insurance, as the title companies would be aware of the recorded C of C and balk at insuring title under the old description.
Coincidentally, a couple of weeks ago I ran into a situation very similar to that. For some decades the parcels shown below as Lots 7, 8 and [Unnumbered] were held by the same person. These lots were created by a 1929 map of Macdonald Subdivision.
A 1933 Official Map of the city shows the same block, but with the lots configured differently:
Title is currently held as Lots 7 and 8 of Macdonald Subdivision, and Lot 8 of the 1933 Official Map. However, the owner now wants to sell off his holdings, and my client wants to buy Lot 7 of Macdonald Subdivision, which is what I surveyed and marked. My reading of the Official Map statute is that it those maps may be used to describe lots for conveyancing, but does it effect a merger and resubdivision? I'll have to check with my client or the realtor to see if the sale went through. The deal may be hung up because there's a commercial building straddling the line between Lots 7 and 8 of Macdonald Subdivision.
Can't you do a "subdivision replat"? Or is that something that is state-specific?
Tom Adams, post: 430885, member: 7285 wrote: Can't you do a "subdivision replat"? Or is that something that is state-specific?
We could do a new Parcel Map, merging and resubdividing the original parent parcel, but that's a much more expensive process. County fees for the LLA will be on the order of $2k, for a new Parcel Map more like $8k.
Jim Frame, post: 430887, member: 10 wrote: We could do a new Parcel Map, merging and resubdividing the original parent parcel, but that's a much more expensive process. County fees for the LLA will be on the order of $2k, for a new Parcel Map more like $8k.
Wow.
Kent McMillan, post: 430824, member: 3 wrote: Well, sorry, but both of those cases you've cited are completely irrelevant to the matter Jim Frame described, which was a land subdivision that created parcels with identifiable boundaries, but which were not owned by the subdivider in their entireties. I'm afraid I can't even imagine some alternate universe where this is difficult to understand.
You may not realize this, but a similar matter is very common in Texas where land grants were made with identifiable boundaries that were later discovered to be in conflict with other, senior, grants. There was typically no question as to the locations of the boundaries of the conflicting grants. The issue was who held the better title to the land within the area of conflict.
In Jim's example, it would be worse than silly for the owner of one of the parcels to continue to attempt to convey the land by reference to the plat that showed Parcel A (or whatever) to embrace land to which the grantor had no title. Smells like a title problem. Is a title problem.
So you admit a simple concept is impossible for you to understand.
The point of those cases is that the solution is a question of location, not title.
This is our biggest problem, things get seriously fubared because most Land Surveyors improperly treat location questions as title questions.
Again, in California, a parcel map is not an official survey, it can't have a title effect on its exterior boundaries.
Dave Karoly, post: 430970, member: 94 wrote: Again, in California, a parcel map is not an official survey, it can't have a title effect on its exterior boundaries.
The real point, though, is that a parcel map can create boundaries in conflict with other boundaries and the title to the land within those areas of conflict is the basis of resolution of the conflicts. In Jim Frame's example, a conveyance of Parcel A described on the rummy engineer's parcel map is evidence of a conflicting claim of ownership, which is another way of saying "claim of title".
The interesting thing about the problem that Jim described is not how to determine who owns the areas in the gaps and conflicts produced by the misfitting parcels, but how to solve the problem of the public records. What I think I heard Jim say is that what had been Parcel A would probably be conveyed using a Frankenstein description along the lines of "Parcel A as shown upon Rummy Engineering Map No., SAVE AND EXCEPT those strips and gores of Parcel that lie within the right-of-way of XYZ Drive and that are in conflict with Parcel 46 of Victorian Addition, together with a triangle of land oub of Parcel B shown upon said Rummy Engineering map described by metes and bounds as follows ...."
The title descriptions are most likely in the common form Parcel of XX PM XX and presumably DCE's PM shows the exterior boundaries properly. No representation is being made that property owned beyond that owned by the original subdivider is being conveyed in any of the writings. The DCE rebars set in error beyond the exterior boundaries of the subdivision do not have any effect on title. I see this as strictly a location question that can be cleared up with a Record of Survey. If the owners think that isn't strong enough they can do boundary line agreements as long as they aren't moving lines.
Apparently in this case the owners want to adjust some of the lines to more equitably distribute areas which does require a lot line adjustment.
The California LLA system is messed up. I've seen where a one owner LLA was done then the adjusted lot sold but the original owners vesting Deed still show him owning the whole thing by the old descriptions. It would be better if the owners recorded new Deed from themselves to themselves with the new descriptions so that immediately gets fixed in the chain of title.
Kent apparently thinks the mere act of driving capped rebars into the ground raises title issues. There is a really nice property with two houses here that my wife would like but I can't afford. I'm going over there right now to set capped rebars around it so I can claim I own it. Imagine the title mushroom cloud that'll raise!
Dave Karoly, post: 430974, member: 94 wrote: The title descriptions are most likely in the common form Parcel of XX PM XX and presumably DCE's PM shows the exterior boundaries properly. No representation is being made that property owned beyond that owned by the original subdivider is being conveyed in any of the writings.
Kent apparently thinks the mere act of driving capped rebars into the ground raises title issues. There is a really nice property with two houses here that my wife would like but I can't afford. I'm going over there right now to set capped rebars around it so I can claim I own it. Imagine the title mushroom cloud that'll raise!
Actually, one element of the situation that Jim Frame described was that Rummy Engineering marked some of the corners of the tract subdivided into three parcels in positions that were in gross conflict with the adjacent properties. Obviously, that act did not transfer title, but to convey the land within those boundaries created a claim of title in conflict with that of the adjoining landowner. The ultimate merits of the claim have nothing to do with the existence of the claim. A conflicting claim of title is a perfect example of a title problem that should not be perpetuated in the public record.
So, the question remains that I raised to begin with, i.e. how to most efficiently clean up the record and the mess that exists. Continuing to convey Parcel A by reference to the Rummy Engineering parcel map that created the conflicts would only perpetuate the existence of the conflicting claims.
Kent McMillan, post: 430979, member: 3 wrote: Actually, one element of the situation that Jim Frame described was that Rummy Engineering marked some of the corners of the tract subdivided into three parcels in positions that were in gross conflict with the adjacent properties. Obviously, that act did not transfer title, but to convey the land within those boundaries created a claim of title in conflict with that of the adjoining landowner. The ultimate merits of the claim have nothing to do with the existence of the claim. A conflicting claim of title is a perfect example of a title problem that should not be perpetuated in the public record.
So, the question remains that I raised to begin with, i.e. how to most efficiently clean up the record and the mess that exists. Continuing to convey Parcel A by reference to the Rummy Engineering parcel map that created the conflicts would only perpetuate the existence of the conflicting claims.
I'm listening to Strauss waltzes right now baw dum dum etc...
Here is how I see it:
You pull the Deed, no apparent problem there.
You pull the Parcel Map referenced by the Deed. Still no apparent problem there (unless the PM on its face takes in land not owned by the subdivider, say for example the subdivider owns Lot 6 & 7 but the PM purports to subdivide Lots 6, 7, & 8). That theoretically shouldn't happen because a Parcel Map guarantee is required.
The Parcel Map includes by reference the underlying subdivision map for its boundaries.
So on the way out the door to the field there is no apparent problem. A prudent Surveyor would have the Parcel Map and the Subdivision Map with them so that they can answer the only remaining question which is that of location. On the Subdivision Map locations it will be superior to the Parcel Map in the case of a conflict, this is already known. Once in the field the location conflict is found and rules governing location will provide the solution.
I realize owner A could file a quiet title action against owner B and at that point the lawyers will determine the course of the litigation but until then it's a question of location. Sometimes people sue when everything is perfectly clear, filing a bunch of paperwork is no guarantee of anything.
If I find out my 80x80 chain Section is really 75x85 chains I don't have to do anything but I could record agreements with my four neighbors and that may be a good idea.
Daniel Ralph got it right--potentially a combustible situation. I think you might consider letting your client know the cost of combustion before she gets too hyped up.
Dave Karoly, post: 430970, member: 94 wrote: This is our biggest problem, things get seriously fubared because most Land Surveyors improperly treat location questions as title questions.
This is what I still don't understand, just haven't seen these problems. I asked the question on this forum of using quitclaim deeds (a title document) to clean up actual uncertainties in location (I understand this is not the issue we have here) The answer I got was that it was better to use a line of agreement or correction deed. But what I haven't heard is how these create problems (aside from possible zoning/planning issues) As far as I can tell, they still work, just maybe not ideal.
In this case, I can see the argument that correcting the document used to convey Title is unnecessary and a Record of Survey is sufficient (even though it doesn't impart constructive notice) but what I don't see is how fixing the title document is harmful and creates problems.
Very interesting discussion. I have a case where the Subdivision Plat was a paper survey. The Developer a self proclaimed Engineer goes out and stakes some one who wants to know where their lot is boundaries. Unfortunately he's 200 feet short and 18 degrees off, because he does know about slope distances and declination. We are currently waiting on a Judge's ruling which I hope will direct the landowners to agree to a "Boundary Line Agreement". Not many have been done and the County is unsure how to handle it, as "Boundary Line Agreements" are not addressed in the Subdivision Regulations. The Developer is citing a "Statute of Limitations" to avoid paying to correct his mess. Tough terrain, one estimate is $58000 to correct it. I say its Fraud and there is no "Statute of Limitations" for fraud. These are riverfront lots valued at over $100,000 per acre. Not a lot of occupied lots, but a few that are not in locations supported by their deeds. We are hoping for a Summary Judgement. The Judge has been sitting on the case now for almost 2 years.
roger_LS, post: 431015, member: 11550 wrote: This is what I still don't understand, just haven't seen these problems. I asked the question on this forum of using quitclaim deeds (a title document) to clean up actual uncertainties in location (I understand this is not the issue we have here) The answer I got was that it was better to use a line of agreement or correction deed. But what I haven't heard is how these create problems (aside from possible zoning/planning issues) As far as I can tell, they still work, just maybe not ideal.
In this case, I can see the argument that correcting the document used to convey Title is unnecessary and a Record of Survey is sufficient (even though it doesn't impart constructive notice) but what I don't see is how fixing the title document is harmful and creates problems.
I don't think following the LLA process causes a problem in this case especially since all of the owners have agreed to it. It is required because the owners want to adjust some of the boundaries. I wouldn't do quit claim Deeds in California in a boundary resolution because that creates the appearance of an illegal conveyance.
My commentary is more along the lines of the case where the owners don't want to follow the LLA process, can I still determine boundary location in those cases? I think I can, no further paperwork is required although it may be desirable.
More later, have to go service grandson.
Dave Karoly, post: 430999, member: 94 wrote:
The Parcel Map includes by reference the underlying subdivision map for its boundaries.
However, Parcel Map also indicates monuments set by Rummy Engineering as marking those same boundaries. Person buys Parcel A described by reference to Parcel Map by Rummy Engineering and hires surveyor to "find the corners of Parcel A" that they just purchased and prepare a topographic map so Mr. Architect can design a bunch of stuff which then gets built. Adjacent owner returns from wherever they were and sees what just got built isn't along where they thought the line was and hires surveyor to "find the corners of my lot". Surveyor scratches around and arrives at where he or she thinks that the corners might have once been marked by redwood stakes, a boundary conflict of as much as 8 ft. is disclosed and the battle is on.
Eighty thousand dollars worth of litigation later, somebody decides that spending a bunch of money to pursue a claim that wouldn't have arisen in the first place if the Parcel Map by Rummy Engineering had been corrected is a bad deal.
Kent McMillan, post: 431030, member: 3 wrote: However, Parcel Map also indicates monuments set by Rummy Engineering as marking those same boundaries. Person buys Parcel A described by reference to Parcel Map by Rummy Engineering and hires surveyor to "find the corners of Parcel A" that they just purchased and prepare a topographic map so Mr. Architect can design a bunch of stuff which then gets built. Adjacent owner returns from wherever they were and sees what just got built isn't along where they thought the line was and hires surveyor to "find the corners of my lot". Surveyor scratches around and arrives at where he or she thinks that the corners might have once been marked by redwood stakes, a boundary conflict of as much as 8 ft. is disclosed and the battle is on.
Eighty thousand dollars worth of litigation later, somebody decides that spending a bunch of money to pursue a claim that wouldn't have arisen in the first place if the Parcel Map by Rummy Engineering had been corrected is a bad deal.
You are trying to idiot proof every survey but idiots will always find ways to fubar things up.
However, what Jim is doing is a good idea especially since the owners have agreed to it which is great so go for it.
It is not absolutely necessary under general legal principles. The basic result of the work product is the location of the boundaries.
When dealing with a Deed conveyance the question of what the Deed conveys is found within it under the parol evidence rule. This is a question of law. The Deed and Parcel Map make no mention of selling land beyond its boundaries. Next, the question of fact is where are the boundaries located. As to the interior lot lines that would be the parcel map survey. As to the exterior boundaries that would be the underlying subdivision survey.
Dave Karoly, post: 431034, member: 94 wrote: When dealing with a Deed conveyance the question of what the Deed conveys is found within it under the parol evidence rule. This is a question of law. The Deed and Parcel Map make no mention of selling land beyond its boundaries.
Except the Rummy Engineering Parcel Map identifies the boundaries of the land subject of the conveyance. Parcel A is a thing marked upon the ground in a definite way, but one that turns out to probably be grossly incorrect. It seems unrealistic to me to think that there is not a large potential for that misrepresentation to spin out into larger, more expensive mayhem if uncorrected.
Your position appears to be that the mistake isn't important because everyone at all times in the future will be able to unravel the situation and strikes me as likely to be unsupported by actual experience. I suppose within the limited context of California law, the relevant question is what the statutes of limitation on adverse possession provide, i.e. whether it doesn't matter what the owner of Parcel A does in mistaken reliance upon the Rummy Engineering Parcel Map, that nothing will impair the adjoining owner's title to the land in conflict or whether there are scenarios in which that would not be true.
