pls7809
Posts: 1035 Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:48 pm
Location: Chino, CA
Post
by pls7809 » Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:30 pm
Here's a new one for me:
Excepting therefrom, the Oak Trees now standing on the land above described, as reserved by (some bank), in the deed recorded June 11, 1898, in ... of deeds...
Ryan Versteeg, PLS, CFedS
Scott Tikalsky
Posts: 94 Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 2:36 pm
Location: Redding, Ca.
Post
by Scott Tikalsky » Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:33 pm
Well, the price of oak firewood keeps going up. :)
Scott Tikalsky, L.S.
Redding, Ca.
530.440.5046
Warren Smith
Posts: 1006 Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:41 am
Location: Sonora
Post
by Warren Smith » Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:41 pm
The Oaks could have been shade for the Bazaar ...
Bizarre ...
:-)
Warren D. Smith, LS 4842
County Surveyor Emeritus
pls7809
Posts: 1035 Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:48 pm
Location: Chino, CA
Post
by pls7809 » Fri Nov 08, 2013 4:45 pm
Thanks Warren. That didn't look right to me and now I know why.
Ryan Versteeg, PLS, CFedS
Dave Karoly, PLS
Posts: 670 Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 6:26 pm
Location: Sacramento
Post
by Dave Karoly, PLS » Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:32 pm
Gladding-McBean in Lincoln purchased and burned up a lot of Oak trees. They are a vitrified clay plant.
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines." -General "Buck" Turgidson
Anthony Maffia
Posts: 530 Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 4:52 pm
Location: Contra Costa County, CA
Post
by Anthony Maffia » Fri Nov 08, 2013 10:11 pm
I learned this in a RE class I took around 2006. Sales of agricultural lands can exclude the next harvest - fruit, crops, etc.
Perhaps the seller was planning on cutting down the oaks as timber?
- Anthony Maffia, LSIT
Dave Sigman
Posts: 31 Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:32 am
Location: Sacramento
Post
by Dave Sigman » Mon Nov 11, 2013 11:42 am
As I understand it, crops in the field and harvested timber aren't considered part of the land but growing timber is. Maybe the owner just had a sentimental attachment to the trees and didn't want to see them cut down.
Dave Sigman
LS 8319
pls7809
Posts: 1035 Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:48 pm
Location: Chino, CA
Post
by pls7809 » Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:00 pm
The reservation was to a bank, so it was probably some kind of commodity they were going to cut and sell. Maybe part of the deal that was made back then to pay off a loan or something.
Ryan Versteeg, PLS, CFedS
RAM
Posts: 770 Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:16 am
Location: Central Cal Mountains
Post
by RAM » Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:50 am
may also have to do with a condition for Oak Tree mitigation.
pls7809
Posts: 1035 Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:48 pm
Location: Chino, CA
Post
by pls7809 » Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:31 am
I would be surprised if mitigation was the reason in 1898.
Ryan Versteeg, PLS, CFedS
Dave Sigman
Posts: 31 Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:32 am
Location: Sacramento
Post
by Dave Sigman » Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:19 am
Since it was to the bank it was probably part of the collateral the bank took for the loan to buy the property... just thinking out loud.
Dave Sigman
LS 8319
RAM
Posts: 770 Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:16 am
Location: Central Cal Mountains
Post
by RAM » Tue Nov 12, 2013 1:59 pm
I took it as a reference to a prior deed in 1898, describing the current lands, subject to. I can see 2 or 3 interpretations based on the info given.