deed requirement for Lot Line Adjustments

[Otter]

When did the requirement for recording deeds with lot line adjustments first appear in the subdivision map act? I would like to throw out an 1989 lot line adjustment for failure to record deeds.

[mpallamary]

I am not certain you can as the discretionary approval should have been challenged within a prescribed time if I am not mistaken.

[mpallamary]

And remember, the LLA is exempt from the subdivision map act, by definition. 66412(d).

[Olin Edmundson]

I wouldn't even begin to consider that a LLA had taken place without recorded deeds. Approval for a LLA is just permission to record deeds and execute the transfer, is it not? Reminds me of an old saying that "you don't map someone in and out of property" i.e. property is transferred by deed.

[steffan]

What was recorded?
Was the LLA for lands held under a single ownership?
How is the the local agency’s muni code written regarding LLA’s?

[Otter]

The resolution approving the LLA was recorded in 1989. All parcels have the same owner. In 2000 the original parcel was put in a trust, totally ignoring the 1989 LLA. I don’t know about the muni code. I have a copy of a 2011 email from the assessor stating the LLA could not be executed without the deeds. So the 2000 deed must be valid but the LLA no good. So, how to fix it?

[LS_8750]

What did the parties do? Did they on the ground act, or occupy, in accordance with the LLA?
If so, then you might want to consider getting them recorded before going forward.

[steffan]

Through 1985 66412(d) had no recording form or content language.
From 1986 through 1989 66412(d) included: “shall be reflected in a deed or Record of Survey, which shall be recorded.”
From 1990 until present 66412(d) included only: “shall be reflected in a deed.”

more later

[E_Page]

If the parcels were under common ownership at the time of the LLA, the owner couldn't have conveyed land to him/herself. The only way I know of to have completed that transfer, although 66412(d) says it cannot be made a requirement of an LLA, would have been to do it by PM. If it was shown on a PM and that map was recorded, the LLA was completed.

If the parcels were under separate ownership, likewise, if shown on a filed PM, it was completed. Otherwise, deeds would have had to be exchanged. No deeds, no completed LLA.

If the owner(s) want to complete the LLA now, they are going to need to start from scratch. In the almost 20 years since the LLA was approved (said approval certainly having expired a few months later), zoning and other applicable ordinances, the County's general plan, etc. would have certainly seen some changes such that it's very unlikely that county officials would simply sign off on the previously approved LLA without going through their full process again.

Even if there had been improvements made since 1989 based on the new boundary location per the 89 LLA, the owners could not claim that the new line is a result of a Boundary Line Agreement because the true location of the boundary was known (had to be for the LLA). Nor could they claim Adverse Possession because neither owner (if not common owner) had been paying taxes on portions transferred to them (per Assessor). Additionally, it is very unlikely that any court would allow AP to be used as an obvious avoidance mechanism of the LLA process.

[Proud7191]

Evan, why can't a person convey land to him/herself if one person owns two+ distinct units of land? ...lots 1 and 2 of xxx subdivision. We do it all the time in Oregon and the last property I owned in Ca. was LLA's by a single owner of multiple lots of an old ag subdivision.
I needs to know. Jp

[Mr. Smith]

Becomes a mucked up title issue, agree with Evan it did not happen.
If deeds were signed and exchanged but not recorded (in the time frame allowed
by the local controlling authority) you might convince the controlling authority and title company
that the LLA did in fact happen.

I assume all you surveyors keep track of these drop dead dates mandated by
local controlling authorities and notify in writing your clients about pleading
said controlling authority for more time to perfect the LLA.

Unfortunately people die, get mad, or refinance with a bank that wont sign.
Lots of things stop LLA's so hopefully no one has monumented
the new line before deeds are perfected.

Brian

[mpallamary]

Riddle me this.

What is the statute of limitations and what is the code reference?

[Otter]

Mike: I have never heard of a statute of limitations for lot line adjustments. There may be one here in Tulare County and I will try to find it through the county planner. I don’t know how to access the county code.
LarryO

[land butcher]

I did some LLAs in the early 1980's in Orange County and exhibits and legals of before and after were required. The title Cos cannot record a new legal desc without a legal desc.

[steffan]

Here is the current relevant portions of the Tulare Muni Code:

7-01-2560 RECORDING DECISION ON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS:
(a) If the Planning and Development Director approves the lot line adjustment map, the written decision of the Planning and Development Director approving the adjustment shall be filed for recording with the County Clerk/Recorder/Assessor. Such decision shall contain a legal description of each parcel resulting from the lot line adjustment.
(f) The recording of the decision of the Planning and Development Director shall supersede all prior recorded parcel maps, subdivision maps or other documents which created the superseded parcels and the boundaries created by the decision of the Planning and Development Director shall prevail over the earlier recorded boundaries, and the recorded decision of the Planning and Development Director shall so state.

Not all dissimilar from that 1989 process where all that occurred was recording of the Board's approval resolution.

It is interesting to note that there are 482 incorporated cities and 58 counties in California, each of which has a different process, form and content for LLA's.

Of these 540 different forms of the LLA process, I know of several which look at LLA's under single ownership as having a process which doesn't record a deed to oneself. Or a parcel map.

Some have parcel map waivers, one has a convoluted process which requires recording a merger, a parcel map waiver, and then cherry on top, certificate of compliance. And fees for each. Much of these variations appear based on the idea that LLAs under single ownership can't be accomplished by deed alone, whether that is true or not.

Of the 540 agencies, and all the varying opinions of the title companies, agency planners, agency councilors and surveyors involved, there is such a wide variety in process, form and content for each of the agencies. The revisions to 66412(d ) in 1986 and 1990 did not necessarily equate to parallel revisions with agency processes. Tulare County's process in 1989 may well have been created prior to 1986, for when no form or content was dictated.

I would speculate that the 1989 Board Resolution is still valid. Perhaps all one needs is to record a corrective deed for that trust deed to perfect title. It could be argued as having been drafted incorrectly by not recognizing the approved LLA resolution. It is curious as to why the assessor never recognized the county resolution. I'd be curious to dig into that history further myself.

Considering the 1989 CA Gov Code 66412(d) allowed for perfecting the LLA by filing a R/S (even though an R/S doesn't normally impart constructive notice), I am curious if there was a R/S filed at that time?

[mpallamary]

Here is what San Diego says:

https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/ ... dib578.pdf

[Otter]

Thanks, Mike:
I may talk to the assessor tomorrow. I will let you know.
LarryO

[E_Page]

Evan, why can't a person convey land to him/herself if one person owns two+ distinct units of land? ...lots 1 and 2 of xxx subdivision. We do it all the time in Oregon and the last property I owned in Ca. was LLA's by a single owner of multiple lots of an old ag subdivision.
I needs to know. Jp

Generally, because granting what one already owns to oneself has no effect and would only serve to clutter the public records. But, since the LLA process ends with deeds containing complete descriptions of the new parcels, thereby keeping title history straight, it might be a valid exception.

Good question. I'll look into it in my spare time (which means you could probably find a definitive answer yourself quicker if you care to do the research).

[Ian Wilson]

John Proud...

See California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) §2985.

A deed is a specialized form of a contract in which one party agrees to perform a function or provide a service of object in return for a consideration from a second party. If I told myself that I would paint my house for $1,000 plus materials, who would I bring action against if I failed to perform or pay? Seriously, it was added the code in one form or another to help prevent land fraud.

[LS_8750]

I usually see LLCs or trusts created to help solve the "granting to oneself" problem.

I've never seen a LLA effectuated without deeds, but I have seen LLAs approved by the governing agency and occupied to by the owners/applicants without subsequent recorded deeds ........ The owners' intent served as valuable action/evidence when discussing with governing agencies years after the statutes of limitations expired. I see this all the time, LLA not effectuated because no deeds were recorded or the deeds were recorded out of order or some other weird failure to close the loop by planners, title companies, owners, and of course surveyors.

[dedkad]

At the agency I worked for, when the two properties were held in common ownership, a LLA agreement would be recorded whereby the owner acknowledges the new legal descriptions and agrees that when the lots are conveyed, they will be conveyed using the new legal descriptions. I take it the resolution that was recorded in your case was just a resolution and not something that was signed by the owner.

[Proud7191]

Thanks guys! 59 years old and the light continues to come on , with your help. I know it happens all the time (deed to oneself to adjust property) but obviously not in some jurisdictions. Thanks, Jon

[Mr. Smith]

time out.pdf

[steffan]

Not sure I agree that Civil Code (CIV not CCP) 2985 is the statute prohibiting deeding property to oneself. For starters, transfer of title by deed does not necessarily involve a real property sales contract.
I would offer for consideration however, the language in Civil Code 1039 which says: “Transfer is an act of the parties, or of the law, by which the title to property is conveyed from one living person to another.”
Other pertinent code sections to consider are Civil Code 1000 and Gov Code 27279.
One common situation where deeds include the same person as grantor and grantee is when property transfers from sole ownership to joint ownership. However this situation might be seen as complying with the legal definition of transfer being as the grantee includes “another” living person.

[marchenko]

SMA says reflected in a deed.It is silent to conveying. One could quitclaim.

However, I have performed many LLA's where the title company draws up deeds from Smith to Smith to comply with the statute. The deeds states it is being recorded to perfect the LLA .