New Published CA Supreme Case

[steffan]

Cox v City of Oakland. Concerning antiquated subdivision maps (again). Maybe not remarkable other than the CA Supreme Court having to overturn a 1st District Court decision, and that it considered it worthy of publishing. My guess is so as to put any argument regarding Gov Code 66412.6 to bed. Otherwise seems consistent with the previous antiquated map decisions and even Brown v Tehama. Still worthwhile reading.

[Scott]

From the Opinion of the Court:
"where a subdivision map was recorded prior to 1893 — the first year of statewide regulation of the subdivision of real property in California — a lot generally obtained no independent legal status based on such depiction on an antiquated map."

If a subdivision map was recorded after 1893, then is it NOT an antiquated map?" In all Counties?

[steffan]

Since the Cox case was in regard to a map created in 1869, this case centered on the Gardner case precedent. For your question, I recommend reviewing the Witt Home Ranch v County of Sonoma and the Abernathy Valley v County of Solano precedent opinions for legality of parcels depicted on maps filed after 1893. In particular, for those parcels never held separately from adjoining lots.

[Scott]

OK, so that would be a no for 1869 and the year is actually 1929 because that's when the State’s first modern land use planning
laws were enacted.

[steffan]

I think that is the most common takeaway Scott.

Food for thought. Since the courts have decided these older maps didn't create lots by themselves, but rather require the action of being transferred in separate conveyances, would it be reasonable to assume that this would mean the transfer of those lots are sequential creations and not simultaneous creations? Asking for a friend;-)

[jamesh1467]

Not sure why no one is answering.

Sequential in law, simultaneous in practice. The lines of the map stay senior to everything, even the conveyances and the lines themselves will (most likely) be assumed to be established simltainously on the map itself. Because I really don't know how else you would realistically establish them without all kinds of other problems. The parcels weren't created until the conveyances, but the map lines were and can be assumed to be in place at the time of the conveyance. The parties would have assumed those lines were created with the intention of being a common line that was already established with the map at the time of conveyance. If you have lines that go "free" or come off the map lines, they will go sequential. They were established at the time of that conveyance and they go sequential. But if you are retracing lines on the map that are common to two parcels established by the map that were already theoretically established at the time of conveyance and incorporated into the conveyance your probably going to get them viewed as simultaneous in practice. Unless there's very weird circumstances. Even though they are technically sequential.

In reality a boundary dispute on these older maps there a lot of other legal doctrines that will be used first. This was more about the permitting aspect and if they can pull parcels away or make new parcels from a larger parcel because it was shown on the map but it was never pulled out of the map on a deed. Its going to be hard for the precident to be directly applied to boundary dispute cases compared to other legal doctrines that are already established based on all the other evidence we could find. The evidence for the arguments in the other legal doctrines that mostly reflect the evidence on the ground today should come up as a lot stronger than trying to apply this precident to a boundary dispute case. Its possible to be applied to a boundary dispute case, but not likely.

Also if you disagree with me, how would we use proration and all of that to establish lines on old maps if we jumped to sequential and gave each parcel their land areas first? It would mess up a lot of stuff. Give me ways we would realistically do it.

[David Kendall]

Also if you disagree with me, how would we use proration and all of that to establish lines on old maps if we jumped to sequential and gave each parcel their land areas first? It would mess up a lot of stuff. Give me ways we would realistically do it.

I do not disagree with you. I found your explanation above compelling! This is an interesting discussion...

When I consider these cases I go back to my prior experience with a minor subdivision on old deed parcels conveyed by aliquot description with reference to an ancient map. No monuments except for a section corner at the top of the subdivision and the built roads and fences. The best I could do was to honor the prior physical occupation and to give priority to the ones that were there first (for better or worse). The junior conveyances got their deeded dimensions (depending on how they were described) and ambiguities were resolved by occupational evaluation.

Some prior mapping existed to varying levels of competence and that was considered as well. At the end of the day it was a sequential evaluation. Very interesting case, my written description could never do it justice.

I drafted that one right before I got my surveyor license and unfortunately it never filed due to a dispute with the city over street paving conditions.