California Surveyors Forums

In 1967 Smith acquires title to a large portion of land. Prior to 1977, Smith and Jones decide to partner up and subdivide a portion of Smiths holdings.

A PM was started with the county, call this PM 123. The north and east line of the PM 123 was common with the south and west line of the remainder of Smiths holdings.

On Feb 10, 1977 Smiths quitclaims the land comprising PM 123 to Jones and Smith reserves an easement for landscaping and fence maintenance. This strip of land is completely within and encumbering Parcel 1 of PM 123. The easement is 6.5 feet wide and 352 feet long and it’s north line is common with the south line of the remainder portion of Smiths land. The easement is shown on PM 123 as an easement in Smiths favor.

The last statement of the easement reads

"Said easement to be appurtenant to the land of the grantor adjacent on the north"

On Feb 18, 1977 Jones grants a second easement to Smith for the same purposes. This easement is completely within and encumbers 3 feet of Parcel 3 of PM 123. It is 95 feet long. The easements east line is common with the west line of the remainder portion of Smiths land. The easement is shown on PM 123 as an easement in Smiths favor.

The last statement of this easement reads
"Said easement to be appurtenant to the land of the grantee adjacent on the eastâ€￾

On April 27, 1977 PM 123 records. Jones signs the map as owner, Smith signs the map as easement holder.

Smith starts another PM with the county, call this PM 345. The south and west line of Parcel 1 of PM 345 is common with the north line of Parcel 1 of PM 123 and the east line of Parcel 3 of PM 123 .

In Dec of 1977 PM 345 records.

Over time, Parcel 1 of PM 345 changes hands to it’s present owner, Harris, who acquired title on Sept 10, 2003. The description of Harris grant deed just says “Parcel 1 of PM 345â€￾, the easement is not listed as part of Harris title.

Did the title company make a mistake?

I didn't read your post in depth, but got enough flavor of the situation to wonder if this portion of the Civil Code is what you're looking for?

1104.

A transfer of real property passes all easements attached thereto, and creates in favor thereof an easement to use other real property of the person whose estate is transferred in the same manner and to the same extent as such property was obviously and permanently used by the person whose estate is transferred, for the benefit thereof, at the time when the transfer was agreed upon or completed.

An appurtenant easement runs with the land whether it's mentioned in subsequent conveyances or not.

So, yes, the the owner of Parcel 1 of PM345 benefits from the easement.

I say they made a mistake, but I know from experience they will just say "it runs with the land and we are technically fine even though we do not mention it specifically on the document".

I had this happen with an owner who owned half of a street that was abandoned, but the title document merely stated he owned "Lot X", and I had to procure the abandonment documents myself to verify it. There were City utilties in that area as well. The title company said the report was correct since the description of "Lot 'X'" by law included the vacated portion of the street.

I had assumed they would issue a new title policy that stated the land that was insured, but they said they did not. There was also an easement reserved by the City for those easements, which was not specified anywhere on the report of course, since it did not make any reference to that area.

I don't have much faith in Title Cos any more. They have become pretty flaky since their liability is now limited to almost nothing.