Required Statement to Merge Parcels

User avatar
Robert Martin
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 11:04 am

Required Statement to Merge Parcels

Postby Robert Martin » Tue May 25, 2021 5:22 am

I'm working on a CC that is being denied...

I'm looking for the code section that states that language such as this:

"Said Lot "A" and said Lot "B" being combined into a single distinct parcel by elimination of the common line between them."

must be in the legal description to make a parcel merger real.

Thanks!!!

User avatar
Robert Martin
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 11:04 am

Re: Required Statement to Merge Parcels

Postby Robert Martin » Tue May 25, 2021 6:40 am

Found it: (Thank you Brian)

CIVIL CODE - CIV
DIVISION 2. PROPERTY [654 - 1422] ( Heading of Division 2 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 13. )
PART 4. ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY [1000 - 1422] ( Part 4 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 4. TRANSFER [1039 - 1231] ( Title 4 enacted 1872. )
CHAPTER 2. Transfer of Real Property [1091 - 1134] ( Chapter 2 enacted 1872. )

ARTICLE 1. Mode of Transfer [1091 - 1099] ( Article 1 enacted 1872. )

1093.
Absent the express written statement of the grantor contained therein, the consolidation of separate and distinct legal descriptions of real property contained in one or more deeds, mortgages, patents, deeds of trust, contracts of sale, or other instruments of conveyance or security documents, into a subsequent single deed, mortgage, patent, deed of trust, contract of sale, or other instrument of conveyance or security document (whether by means of an individual listing of the legal descriptions in a subsequent single instrument of conveyance or security document, or by means of a consolidated legal description comprised of more than one previously separate and distinct legal description), does not operate in any manner to alter or affect the separate and distinct nature of the real property so described in the subsequent single instrument of conveyance or security document containing either the listing of or the consolidated legal description of the parcels so conveyed or secured thereby.

This section does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, the existing law.

(Added by Stats. 1985, Ch. 911, Sec. 1.)

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Required Statement to Merge Parcels

Postby mpallamary » Tue May 25, 2021 10:43 am

The CC cannot be denied. it must be issued unconditioned or conditioned. Merger is EXCLUSIVE under the SMA. You should look there.

User avatar
Robert Martin
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 11:04 am

Re: Required Statement to Merge Parcels

Postby Robert Martin » Tue May 25, 2021 11:49 am

mpallamary wrote:The CC cannot be denied. it must be issued unconditioned or conditioned. Merger is EXCLUSIVE under the SMA. You should look there.

I miss-spoke, the CC will likely be approved with the condition that a parcel map be filed... (lol, in my pea brain that's denying it)

User avatar
mpallamary
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Required Statement to Merge Parcels

Postby mpallamary » Tue May 25, 2021 12:11 pm

Got it!

Good luck! I would fight it.

dharri
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 7:20 am

Re: Required Statement to Merge Parcels

Postby dharri » Tue May 25, 2021 12:48 pm

Circa 1990, The San Diego County Surveyor’s Office filed a compliant with the State Board alleging that a record of survey mapmaker had violated Business and Professions Code Section 8764(b) by using a basis of bearings that was not the record bearing between two record monuments. The State Board opined that Section 8764(b) did not define what constituted a basis of bearings, therefore, anything identified as a “basis of bearings” on the record of survey met the requirement, including record bearing between two no record monuments, assumed bearing or deed bearing. The County Surveyor revised his “San Diego County Surveyor’s Note” to indicate that although it was within the legal requirement of 8764(b), he thought it was poor practice. The mapmaker appealed to the State Board regarding the proposed County Surveyor’s note. The State Board advised the County Surveyor that he had insufficient evidence to add that statement to the map. Subsequent to that, mapmakers were encouraged to avoid using “assumed basis of bearings”.

User avatar
Elias French
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:22 am

Re: Required Statement to Merge Parcels

Postby Elias French » Thu Jul 15, 2021 2:03 pm

Looking through the Forum for something else and saw this...

Mr. Martin, out of curiousity, may I ask how this turned out? This is a subject I have always found interesting, since as far as I can tell a Parcel Map is not an appropriate condition of a COC in this (perhaps in any) instance. I'd be curious as to the logic of the local agency, your opinion, and what others might think though.

My understanding is as follows (copied from another thread):

Question: “Is a Parcel Map ever an appropriate condition of a COC?” Generally, I think not. The conditions of a Conditional COC are the conditions that would have been applied to a properly done subdivision at the time of creation in most cases (build sidewalk, utility connections etc,). A map is not a condition, a map IS THE INSTRUMENT OF SUBDIVISION. A COC is only sought to ascertain the legality of a parcel that has already been created. The act of subdivision has already occurred. It is not possible, necessary, or appropriate to attempt to subdivide by map now, that which has already been subdivided!

Cheers all


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests