I am preparing a title sheet for a Parcel Map and have some signature omissions that I have been working on. In California certain signatures can be omitted from a Parcel or Subdivision (Tract) Map. In my case, the omissions of signatures are based upon the fact that they are just easement holders and thier right cannot ripen into fee title.
I have a Preliminary Subdivision Guarantee (PSG) that I am following in perparing the omission of signature statement that lists the different entities and thier interest in the underlying lands of the Parcel Map.
I was touching up the title sheet before shipping it out for prints and went through the easement documents for a final check and came across what I believe to be an error in the PSG.
The PSG lists one entity, Cudahy Walnut Land Company (CWLC), as being a holder of a 4 foot wide easement over the rear four feet of the PIQ. This is shown in three different documents. CWLC retained the four foot easement right over all lots in a certain tract, Tract No. 2262, when individual lots were sold.
However, in another document, Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company was granted the same easement by CWLC. This grant was done by a quitclain by CWLC to PTT. The quitclaim deed is junior to the deeds that granted the four foot easement reservations to CWLC. The quitclaim reads as such, paraphrased...
"CWLC does hereby remise, release and quitclaim to PTT, for specific purposes, the rear four feet of all lots in Tract No. 2262.
(The question part follows)
RESERVING HOWEVER, the right to convey easements for any and all public utilities over the property hereinabove described, which shall be subject to the easements hereinabove conveyed, it not being the intention hereto that said easements shall be exclusive.
THIS DEED and the easement and right of way hereby remised, released and quitclaimed are expressly contingent upon record ownership of the aforesaid property or record ownership of a reserved easement in the Grantor, and are subject to any and all easements and rights of way heretofore remised, released and quitclaimed by grantor to any perwson or corporation, whether recorded or unrecorded."
The question..
Does CWLC have any interest in the rear four feet other than the right of future conveyance?
EDIT: The reason I would like to iron this out is that I just do not want a title company error screwing up the expedient filing of this map. I already caught them on another slip and just do not want to deal with more errors later on down the line.
Paul,
You say CWLC is holder of an easement and it is shown in three different documents.
What is the language of the grant of easement to CWLC?. What 3 documents show this grant?
These questions might help me in understanding what rights CWLC originally obtained.
Signature Omissions - Clearcut
> You say CWLC is holder of an easement and it is shown in three different documents.
Yes. In 3 previous deeds, previous to the quitclaim to PTT.
> What is the language of the grant of easement to CWLC?. What 3 documents show this grant?
I *think* that CWLC was the subdividing owner of Tract No. 2262. The old map print is real hard to make out as far as who the actual owner was, but from how CWLC was deeding individual lots to people and reserving back the four foot easement, I think it's safe to sat they were the subdividing owner. The language of the reservations in the deed grants was always the same, reserving back four feet for the individual lot being granted and a blanket reservation over the rear four feet of all lots in Tract No. 2262.
>What 3 documents show this grant?
Individual grant deeds from CWLC to others by reservation.
Signature Omissions - Clearcut
Paul, am curious what the language was in the reservations. Such as the purpose of the easement, and if there were any other qualifiers in the statement such as the abiilty to transfer. What I'm confused is what CWLC would need the easements for and how well was the language written in the reservation to allow CWLC to convey rights to others.
yes
Show it as indicated by the title report. I would be sure to mention PTT and the indication that there maybe public utilites uses within the eassement.
Signature Omissions - Clearcut
> Paul, am curious what the language was in the reservations. Such as the purpose of the easement, and if there were any other qualifiers in the statement such as the abiilty to transfer. What I'm confused is what CWLC would need the easements for and how well was the language written in the reservation to allow CWLC to convey rights to others.
OK..let me try scanning one of the grant deeds..
There is more to the deed but it's just CCR stuff. The second sheet is so blurry that a scan would be useless.
>What I'm confused is what CWLC would need the easements for and how well was the language written in the reservation to allow CWLC to convey rights to others.
It was common practice in the olden days for the subdividing owner to do reservations like this. Many times the reservations were blanket in nature. It was to insure that utility services could be installed after lots were sold off.
yes
> Show it as indicated by the title report.
Nope. I wont show it if's it's wrong Dane.
Well Paul,
What you posted indicated that only specific rights were being quitclaimed..... not the entirety of the grantor's interest......you are going to show PTT interest aren't you?
It is a title matter, not a survey matter.
The grantor is a California corporation and the secretary of state maintains records of corporations and a search can be made to see if that particular corp. is still a going concern. If it is still a going concern, they have have retained some interest in the easement. On the other hand, if they have disolved the corp., then I would see your point.
