Parcel Mergers

[GWinglovitz]

If you are filing a parcel meger and the original description for the parcels is lot and block, does anyone see an advantage to making the new description for the resultant parcel a metes and bounds description?

Also, after the parcel merger is approved and the certificate of compliance is recorded would a new deed, from and to the current owner with the new description be needed to perfect title?

[rpost]

I like to keep the legal description the same, especially if it is a lot and block description.

[Ian Wilson]

Some jurisdictions require a new description. If that’s the case, there’s nothing to stop you from the following:

Beginning at the northwest corner of Lot 1 of Map X; thence B&D along the northerly line of said Lot 1 and Lot of said Map X, to the northeast corner of said Lot 2; then B&D along the easterly line of said Lot 2 to the southeasterly corner…

It makes the B&D give way to the positions of the lot corners per the map.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[D Ryan]

I would see a disadvantage to changing the descriptions from the manner the current parcels were created (i.e., via a lot/block description) and from how the current vestees acquired title-likely via the lot/block description.

Although one could attempt to re-describe it via metes/bounds, it sounds like courting trouble unnecessarily.

As Wattles said, “Don’t cut off any title to land to which your client is entitled. Don’t give your client title to land to which he is not entitledâ€￾. I believe this is his way of saying, don’t alter existing descriptions when you’re simply trying to repeat existing title in the manner acquired.

Since the Map Act allows local ordinances to effect mergers, if the merger is done in conformance with those ordinances, there should be no need for what you describe in the second part of your question. It’s a good idea for the current owners to sign and acknowledge the merger, getting it into the chain of title (in effect imparting constructive notice). Some counties even require it.

[land butcher]

The biggest problem with M&B descs is the potential for gaps and/or overlaps.
L&B or sectionalized land eliminates this.

We did a number of ALTA's for a mini mart company years ago and the attorneys wanted the lot and block described as a M&B also. After the first couple we found out the attorneys were recording a new description as M&B totally ignoring the lot and block. Made for some long M&B descriptions after that.

[Stephen Johnson]

land butcher;"The biggest problem with M&B descs is the potential for gaps and/or overlaps. L&B or sectionalized land eliminates this.

We did a number of ALTA's for a mini mart company years ago and the attorneys wanted the lot and block described as a M&B also. After the first couple we found out the attorneys were recording a new description as M&B totally ignoring the lot and block. Made for some long M&B descriptions after that."



Last attorney that "requested" M&B for a Lot & Block, got one that could not be used to record without either embarrassing the attorney or having to be totally redone. All sorts of statements that the REAL legal was Lot XX Block ZZZ and that the M&B was NOT TO BE RELIED UPON FOR DESCRIBING THE PROPERTY.

I never did find out what got recorded in the deed. My plat did NOT have the requested M&B anywhere on it.

I will not issue one on a lot and block description that has either the company name or my name on it. If some attorney claims I did and made a mistake and wants to sue, they are going to have Much trouble proving it. No notes, no copy in the file. No copy on the computer.

[GWinglovitz]

Deeds of Trust

Thanks everyone for the input. Does anyone know if a parcel merger is like a boundary adjustment, where if there are any outstanding deeds of trust the lenders need to agree to the recording of the parcel merger?

[land butcher]

Every place I've done a merger, it's been the same process as an adjustment through the local agency, and even though some agencies don't enforce a modification of deed of trust requirement, it's at least as important as on an adjustment because if the lender tried to foreclose on one of the parcels that has now been merged, that would be an illegal land division. If that happened, I don't know what the solution would be but I don't think it would be pretty.

Checkbooks bleeding profusely

[GWinglovitz]

The City I'm dealing with is also requesting that a Cert. of Compliance be recorded along with the Certificate of Parcel Merger. Is this required? Per SMA sec 66451.12 "A merger of parcels becomes effective when the local agency causes to be filed for record with the recorder of the county in which the real property is located, a notice of merger...". To me this indicates that the Cert. of Compliance is not needed. Any thoughts?

[Brian Christensen]

If the agency has already approved the merger, then they have already found both parcels to be legal and compliant. If the parcels are not legal/ compliant, then a C of C should be required prior to the merger, not as a condition.

[GWinglovitz]

Did anyone else have any input on the second part of my question? I recently ran into a parcel merger where there was a deed to and from the currnet owner that was apparently filed to perfect title.

"..., after the parcel merger is approved (and recorded)... would a new deed, from and to the current owner with the new description be needed to perfect title?"

I don't think it is necesarry because per SMA sec 66451.12 "A merger of parcels becomes effective when the local agency causes to be filed for record with the recorder of the county in which the real property is located, a notice of merger...".

Thanks,

[GWinglovitz]

Does anyone have anymore input on the question above? Thanks in advance for any assistance.

[Ian Wilson]

What are you looking for, Gary?

[GWinglovitz]

Ian

First of all congratulations on your CO license!

My question is about the need to record deeds to "perfect title" after a parcel merger is approved (and recorded)... would a new deed, from and to the current owner with the new description be needed to perfect title?

I don't think it is necesarry because per SMA sec 66451.12 "A merger of parcels becomes effective when the local agency causes to be filed for record with the recorder of the county in which the real property is located, a notice of merger...".

I'm thinking that this is a different situation to a lot line adjustment.

Also, the city wants me to file a certificate of compliance after the parcel merger is recorded. I don't think that this would be necesarry?

Thanks,

[Ian Wilson]

Thanks, Gary!

This really isn’t much different than a Lot Line Adjustment.

The Certificate of Merger IS the Certificate of Compliance.

One of the grounds for denial of the merger is that the resulting parcel would not meet jurisdictional ordinance for legal lots.

The Certificate of Compliance is the jurisdictions determination that the parcel meets jurisdictional requirements for being a legal lot as far as its creation and meeting ordinance. This is a classic double bite of the apple. Not allowed. End of story.

[GWinglovitz]

Thanks Ian. Did you have a comment on the need to "perfect title" after a merger??

Thanks,

[Ian Wilson]

Other than the fact that the merger has already perfected the title, no.

A merger should be a straight forward simmpe project. Its too much overthinking that turns these simple projects into full blown nightmares.

Step back. Take a breath. Figure out what your trying to do and do it as simply as possible.

It's the convoluted messes that create the problems years down the road. Look the headaches you deal with today and see if I'm wrong.