Quitclaim Deeds

[7702]

Here's a scenario:

You're hired to perform a boundary survey of a ten acre parcel. Upon performing deed research, you find a recent quitclaim deed which appears to convey a portion of the ten acres to an adjoiner. Base on your research, the land conveyed in the quitclaim deed does not appear to have been the result of a legal subdivision of the parent parcel.

What would you show on your ROS as depicting your client's current boundary?

[D Ryan]

Ownership transferred via the deed, it's just not legal in terms of the Map Act. But you may hit a snag in fling your RS. See 8762.5 of the PLS Act.

Dave Ryan
Humboldt County

[7702]

Thanks, Dave.

The section you cite seems pretty clear. I read it the other day and already forgot about it. Doh!

Here it is:

8762.5. Record of survey - land division No record of survey of land shown on the latest adopted county assessment roll as a unit or as contiguous units, which shows a division of such land into additional parcels, shall be filed with the county surveyor or with the county recorder, unless there is attached thereto a certificate by the county surveyor if the land lies within an unincorporated area, or a certificate by the city engineer if the land lies within a city, of compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of Title 7 of the Government Code, and any applicable local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto.

[7702]

This wasn't quite so simple afterall.

In my situation, the portion quitclaimed does not show up on the assessor's map due to an oversight. Is the cert. of compliance still required?

*well, maybe it's there. It's a narrow strip and not clearly shown. Hard to say who is paying taxes on it.

[Ian Wilson]

OK. I'll bite.

If a portion of the 10 acre parcel was recently quitclaimed, why would it show up on an Assessor's Plat or be missed by an oversight? Wouldn't this be a subdivision not in compliance with the SMA?

What am I missing?

.

[E_Page]

Is the QCD a result of a valid LLA?

[7702]

Sorry for the confusion, fellas.

It does not appear to be the result of a LLA and I'm unable to locate the QC deed or any other deed that supports the current configuration. There is a five year old ROS that was filed, but it seems to add to the confusion.

I better hold off on any further comment until this matter is resolved. Thanks for your input.

[goodgps]

Gee,
This case sounds awful familiar.

This must be a trend following the complete kayoss we just lived thru.

ie; no follow up on LLAs and phantom ROS's w/o deed support.
Maybe we were moving a bit too fast in the land acquisition / sales area and not paying attention to the details.

This one may not be as tough as you think.
Good Luck
"good"

[7702]

I finally found the Quitclaim deed by going through the grantor/grantee index. The current deed for the parent parcel makes no mention of the Quitclaim/Grant deed in it's description. I suspect a current title report would also have confirmed the existence of the deed. Turns out that it was actually prepared as a "Grant Deed", but its attached legal description and "explanation" refer to it as a quitclaim deed.

Here's the explanation that's included at the end of the legal description that was attached to the deed:

"This quitclaim description from Jimmy Grantor to Johnny Grantee (names changed to protect the innocent) does not constitute a boundary adjustment, and was verbally exempted from normal Boundary Adjustment procedures by the County Planning Director in July, xxxx. It is made to clarify an uncertain and previously undescribed boundary between Assessor's Parcels 123-456-78 and 876-543-21. A sketch that graphically shows the above description is attached hereto and made a part hereof."

Same surveyor prepared this deed and the ROS five years ago, but failed to reference the deed on the ROS.

In my opinion the boundary between the parcels was never "uncertain" or "previously undescribed". There are no issues with deed gaps or overlaps or other ambiguities. The "uncertain" boundaries had been monumented, but no ROS filed, twenty years ago, by the same surveyor, during the performance of a valid LLA. The mystery parcel is a portion of one of the parcels that resulted from the LLA.

[Gary O]

"....verbally exempted from normal Boundary Adjustment procedures by the County Planning Director.... "

Its been my experience that in a controversial project, I get just enough information to agree with what the asker wants. Later however, full disclosure usually reveals that key peices of evidence, which would have resulted in a different decision, were ommitted from the initial conversation.

Isn't that conveeeeeeeenient?

[7702]

I spoke with the planning director yesterday regarding this matter. For what it's worth, he stated that he does not recall the exemption and to do so verbally would be very unusual.