Looking for feedback:
See attachment. Parcel A was created by deed on 2/2/1950. Party 1 owns Parcel A. Party 2 enters into a Purchase Option Agreement (POA) with
Party 1 to purchase Parcel A on 3/3/1986. POA has a term of 40 years.
Tract 1234 records on 1/1/2000 including a portion of Parcel A. Tract 1234 consists of a single lot. The un-hatched portion of Parcel A is designated as a Remainder Parcel.
Does Party 2 still have the right to purchase the cross hatched area under the POA, or does the POA now only apply to the Remainder Parcel portion of Parcel A?
Would the conveyance of the cross hatched area to Party 2 be a violation of the Map Act in 2023? Note, the cross hatched area is not a legally created lot. It is now part of Lot 1 of Tract 1234 and has a new legal description. Would it be a violation of the Map Act for the owner of Tract 1234 to transfer the cross hatched portion of Lot 1 of Tract 1234 to Party 2 by deed via a metes and bounds legal description.
Would a Parcel Map need to be filed to subdivide Tract 1234 into two parcels? One covering the cross hatched area.
Look forward to your views.
Remainder Parcel
-
subman
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:22 pm
- Location: Ventura County
Remainder Parcel
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
David Kendall
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:45 pm
- Location: Ferndale
Re: Remainder Parcel
Did party 2 sign the Tract Map?
I do not know the legal rights associated with the Purchase Option Agreement but if Party 2 has an interest in the land subdivided and this was not addressed by the subdivider then I expect that the subdivision may not be valid.
I see this as a title problem rather than a survey matter.
MAybe you apply for a Certificate of Compliance on Parcel A. See what comes back then go from there.
If it was a legal lot in 1950 then your answer now depends on the legal effects of the subdivison.
Assuming the subdivsion is valid, the portion of Parcel A included in Tract 1234 would have to be conveyed back to Party 2. I would apply for LLA rather than another subdivision.
Nice puzzle!
I do not know the legal rights associated with the Purchase Option Agreement but if Party 2 has an interest in the land subdivided and this was not addressed by the subdivider then I expect that the subdivision may not be valid.
I see this as a title problem rather than a survey matter.
MAybe you apply for a Certificate of Compliance on Parcel A. See what comes back then go from there.
If it was a legal lot in 1950 then your answer now depends on the legal effects of the subdivison.
Assuming the subdivsion is valid, the portion of Parcel A included in Tract 1234 would have to be conveyed back to Party 2. I would apply for LLA rather than another subdivision.
Nice puzzle!
-
CBarrett
- Posts: 766
- Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2021 12:55 pm
Re: Remainder Parcel
It appears that If a party C owns the tract 1234, the POA is no longer valid, I gather that they don't run with the land, but are agreements binding between specific land owners.
You may need to consult a realtor for this, they are the ones who deal with POA's, in addition to attorneys. Surveyors, not so much.
If only Parties A and B are involved, one would have to review the chain of title for crosshatched area to see what rights have passed and how, along with any tract CCNR's, in addition to the POA language.
As far as the SMA, yes, to sell the crosshatched area as anything other than an undivided percentage of an interest (tenants in common style) it needs to be subdivided via parcel map to be a standalone parcel. Can not subdivide it by a legal description.
What is the ultimate goal?
You may need to consult a realtor for this, they are the ones who deal with POA's, in addition to attorneys. Surveyors, not so much.
If only Parties A and B are involved, one would have to review the chain of title for crosshatched area to see what rights have passed and how, along with any tract CCNR's, in addition to the POA language.
As far as the SMA, yes, to sell the crosshatched area as anything other than an undivided percentage of an interest (tenants in common style) it needs to be subdivided via parcel map to be a standalone parcel. Can not subdivide it by a legal description.
What is the ultimate goal?
-
hellsangle
- Posts: 694
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:31 am
- Location: Sonoma, CA
- Contact:
Re: Remainder Parcel
Question: Is Party 1 also the owner of Tract 1234? Or is Tract 1234 an entirely different entity/owner?
If the latter is true you have junior/senior title that have to be determined. If Party 1 came first then the owner of Tract 1234 get's what's leftover.
If Party 1 owns both - then as Kendall said - a LLA could be a fix . . . but I imagine Party 1 could be in legal jeopardy if he/she sold Tract 1234 without acknowledging there is an Purchase Option of Parcel A?
Crazy Phil's two cents
If the latter is true you have junior/senior title that have to be determined. If Party 1 came first then the owner of Tract 1234 get's what's leftover.
If Party 1 owns both - then as Kendall said - a LLA could be a fix . . . but I imagine Party 1 could be in legal jeopardy if he/she sold Tract 1234 without acknowledging there is an Purchase Option of Parcel A?
Crazy Phil's two cents