California Surveyors Forums

Not sure if it's just me, but I am noticing a new trend in easement deeds. More and more public agencies want a legal of the "dominant tenement" of the easement deed described in addition to the actual easement area. Then they have an extra exhibit for the full deed.

Any reason why? I guess I don't see the point? especially since that old legal is just taken directly off of the existing PTR?

I feel like the real estate folks think more is better in these deeds and to me it just adds cost.

The format has been around for a long time, it just hasn't been utilized prevalently. It is driven by whomever prepares the executable portion of the deed. If it specifies subject grantor's property as described in Exhibit "A", and the portion being granted as shown on Exhibit "B", my experience is that a lender or title insurer has made the request.

It's not unusual around here.

falcon wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 6:32 am Not sure if it's just me, but I am noticing a new trend in easement deeds. More and more public agencies want a legal of the "dominant tenement" of the easement deed described in addition to the actual easement area. Then they have an extra exhibit for the full deed.

Any reason why? I guess I don't see the point? especially since that old legal is just taken directly off of the existing PTR?

I feel like the real estate folks think more is better in these deeds and to me it just adds cost.

If an easement is appurtenant to another property, then that property needs to be able to be properly identified.
Just like if an easement is for the benefit of 'public" or "Southern California Edison" or a specific individual, that individual has to be legally identifiable.
If you are granting an easement to let's say Edison, you will not grant an easement to 'some electric company' you will use their legal business name, which can be traced in state records, and through which officers of corporation can be found.

To identify a dominant tenement with certainty, it has to be legally described.