California Surveyors Forums

This is a vacant, in-fill lot in El Granada (a hilly coastal area) where I am used to seeing sewer easements granted in the rear during the 1960s. This one is different, in that it was a condemnation, and it does not state it to be for a right of way.

The title officer says it is clearly a taking in fee, which is atypical of any lot in this entire area, as it would basically create a 5-foot alley along the side. There is no such "alley" anywhere else.

Further, the APN map does not show any strip at all. I know one cannot adverse possess a public utility, but I do wonder if that is evidence of easement versus fee title.

I am curious if anyone has come across something like this before.

Enclosed is the document in question.

You could argue that the second paragraph of the first page contains a "purpose" - for construction and maintenance of sanitary sewer and water distribution...

It was for a specified purpose.

Have you inquired at the water district as you what they think they have?

I would imagine condemnations would always have a stated reason, whether it be fee or easement, but initially that did strike me as interesting.

I am checking into the water district now. I actually just noticed Coastside County Water was the plaintiff. I assumed it was the Granada Sanitary District, who is the current sewer authority out there (and there are sewer manholes in that area - no water utility from what I saw).

I had contacted the Sewer Authority earlier (before looking into title matters) to get their utility map and their system graphically shows no alley there.

edit - also looking into the case that this references, since this could simply be poorly worded.

Lines 27-32 are the meat of the matter. The first 3 lines appear to indicate an easement but the "will vest in the plaintiff free and discharged of all claims and liens of every king whatsoever" lends it self to Fee simple in the Water District.

Interesting.

What does the next transfer by deed do the address this 5' wide strip?

I did not make it clear, but the current and prior deed and title report have a separate paragraph excepting the strip, so it is clearly described as not being part of the property.

I did speak with a land use attorney and he had similar feelings about this as we do - on it's face this is a fee transfer, but there are some phrases in it that lend itself more to being an easement. Basically the next step is I need to get to the courthouse later today and get that case and see if it clarifies the intent.

On a side note I find it intriguing when picturing the client signing off on things at the title company, nobody lets him know he is getting a 45-foot wide lot. Somehow he has to know this, or have the sophistication to stop and read the legal description and ask what the exception is. This is obvious to us, but I think for the average person, he needs to be informed of this, since other than the legal, visually (APN map and occupation) there is no indication he is getting a 45' wide lot.

The city I work in we simply quitclaim to the adjoiner(s) when requested. Different state now but same principal, I believe. Jp

The statements "will vest in the plaintiff free and discharged of all claims and liens of every king whatsoever" and that about purpose or use create an ambiguity regarding title. I can think of good arguments either way. To clear it up, it is going to come down to what the parties, the water district and the lot owner believe the state of title is or should be. If they agree, the fix is relatively easy in that either the water district issues a QCD to relinquish any fee title they may have but reserving an easement for the purposes in the Final Judgment of Condemnation, or the lot owner issues a QCD relinquishing any fee they may hold.

If they disagree, I don't see a way to avoid getting lawyers involved. They would either need to negotiate to an agreement or litigate to clear the title ambiguity. If you can get copies of the transcript or the briefs to the action, they may contain info to clear the ambiguity. If the water district was suing only for an easement, or the right to build, maintain, etc... then that would show clear intent for an easement. If litigated and those documents were submitted as exhibits by one side or the other, they would be just the kind of extrinsic evidence a judge would want to have to support a decision either way.

I went to the county courthouse and copied a portion of the actual case and it states the action is sought to "condemn and acquire easements".

btaylor wrote:I went to the county courthouse and copied a portion of the actual case and it states the action is sought to "condemn and acquire easements".

Looks like that defines the intent.

btaylor wrote:I went to the county courthouse and copied a portion of the actual case and it states the action is sought to "condemn and acquire easements".

Good job doing research!

Glad to see it is resolved. Research will do that,another angkke is to consider who is paying taxes on the land....