California Surveyors Forums

Very interesting case with significant ramifications. Will be interesting to see if appealed to and/or heard by the Ca Supreme Court.

Long story short, this case has to do with the legal status of remnant parcels after the parent parcel is bisected by eminent domain action. The court here says no, the parent parcel does not become divided and remains as one, even though separated by fee simple strips of land.

Why is it they include a map with this easy to follow case, but not with the complicated boundary cases? Maybe I just answered my own question:).

Michael Durkee is not a happy camper tonight.

The opinion seems right.

I just ran across an AG Opinion where the AG came to the conclusion that a parcel that was divided into 2 remnants by a reservoir was considered to be 2 separate parcels for purposes of the SMA. I'll see if I can relocate that AGO tomorrow.

Evan,

this case discusses 86 Opinions California Attorney General 70 (2003), which is perhaps the AG opinion you are remembering. This case's discussion on that AG opinion is an interesting twist on the subject at hand.

Jeff

I am personally familiar with the some of the parties from my time at Parks (CA Dept of Parks & Recreation).

The Ca Supreme Court has been petitioned to review the case of Save Mount Diablo v Contra Costa County. Will be interested to see if they grant review.
Another item of interest is that the Office of the Kings County Counsel has submitted a letter requesting depublication of the case.

As a Sonoma County native, I've always been interested in the local court cases regarding SMA and ancient subdivisions.

Can someone post the court decision referenced on page 5? I don't know where to get it.
Witt Home Ranch, Inc. v. County of Sonoma (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 543, 551

Also on page 6
Gardner v. County of Sonoma (2003) 29 Cal.4th 990, 997

See Save Mount Diablo's article on this legal action here:
http://www.savemountdiablo.org/lands_la ... p_act.html

Note: I live in Brentwood, and I don't think the landscape photo at the top of the page is of the property. The large parcels are in vines, and the smaller western parcels are fenced and down hill of the roads.

Witt Home v Sonoma: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... s_sdt=2006

Gardner v. County of Sonoma http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... s_sdt=2006


Google Scholar is a great resource for free legal research.

Anthony Maffia wrote:As a Sonoma County native, I've always been interested in the local court cases regarding SMA and ancient subdivisions.

Can someone post the court decision referenced on page 5? I don't know where to get it.
Witt Home Ranch, Inc. v. County of Sonoma (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 543, 551

Also on page 6
Gardner v. County of Sonoma (2003) 29 Cal.4th 990, 997

Evan gave you a link, but for future reference, just a simple Google search with some key words will usually get you to a website that has reprinted the court decision in full.

I've been watching this one pretty close and see that yesterday, 1/20/16, the Ca Supreme Court denied review.
The published appellate decision addresses the question of whether or not a fee simple taking which bisects a parcel, creates a legal division of the land. The appellate court said no.

I believe it is still to be decided by the appellate court as to whether Kings County Council's request for de-publication is granted.

For those interested, every published California case back to 1850 is available for free (Lexis subscription paid for by the California Courts):
http://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/CACourts/