Save Mount Diablo v. Contra Costa County involved the question of whether an imminent domain taking which physically splits an existing parcel into several non-adjacent pieces constitutes a subdivision of the original parcel under the Subdivision Map Act, thus allowing a would-be developer to forego the often onerous requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.

 

The property in question consisted of a large undeveloped tract off Vasco Road in Eastern Contra Costa County. Historically, the tract had been recorded as a single parcel and used for agricultural purposes, but in the mid-1990s the Contra Costa Water District (“District”) acquired two narrow intersecting strips of land by eminent domain for an underground pipeline and to relocate Vasco Road, respectively. The District’s acquisition of the strips in fee left a remaining property consisting of four irregularly shaped parts, each physically separated from the other parts by one of the strips owned by the District.

 

Nunn, the property owner who had purchased the property after the District’s acquisition of the strips, first attempted to subdivide the land using the parcel map process outlined in the Subdivision Map Act. After those efforts proved unsuccessful, Nunn changed course and instead sought a certificate of compliance from the County. While the County initially denied the request at the planning staff level, the matter was brought before the Planning Commission, which reversed the staff’s decision. The County Board of Supervisors eventually agreed with the Planning Commission and issued four certificates of compliance (i.e., one for each physically separated portion of the property) certifying that the four newly created parcels complied with the Subdivision Map Act.

 

Save Mount Diablo (“SMD”) filed suit, petitioning the Court for a Writ of Mandate requiring the County to set aside the four certificates of compliance. The trial court granted SMD’s petition and the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, affirmed. The Court first examined the purpose of, and procedures mandated under, the Subdivision Map Act’s requirements for creation of a new legal parcel. Next, the Court considered Nunn’s main argument, that the District’s physical division of the Property by acquiring the strips traversing the Property constituted a “division” under the act. While Nunn contended that the District had effectively divided the Property because the result was four non-contiguous “parcels,” the Court disagreed.

 

While the Court agreed that the District’s acquisition of the strips physically divided the Property, such that a person would need to traverse the District’s property in order to travel from one portion of the Property to another, the physical division of the property by imminent domain did not constitute a division of the Property under the Subdivision Map Act. On this issue, the Court found that a physical division of property was not determinative, but that the key issue was whether the newly created parcels complied with the Subdivision Map Act. The Court noted that a division within the meaning of the Subdivision Map Act is not established merely because parts of a property do not touch. In reaching its holding, the Court looked a California Attorney General opinion which advanced the notion that the term “contiguous” could be used to not only denote two things which are in physical contact, but could also be used in this context describe two things which are “nearby.” The Court ultimately held that despite being separated by strips running across the Property, the portions of the Property were still contiguous and, therefore, no division had taken place.

 

The takeaway from this case: The Court was likely influenced by equitable considerations, as evidenced by the reference to Nunn’s predecessor’s receipt of almost $1 million from the District to compensate for the taking of the two strips of land and the fact that the remaining pieces of the Property were still easily accessible.

 

Save Mount Diablo v. Contra Costa County (Nunn) (2015) 14 C.D.O.S. 11084

(12/15)

The Hoffman v. 162 North Wolfe case involved claimed prescriptive easements over commercial property in Sunnyvale. In March 2010, Hoffmans purchased property at 170 North Wolfe (“170”). At the time of the purchase, Hoffmans were tenants of 170 and were thus familiar with that property and the adjacent property at 162 North Wolfe (“162”). After close of escrow, the owner of the adjacent property, 162 LLC, notified Hoffmans that they claimed a landscape easement and prescriptive easement rights of ingress and egress over 170. Thereafter, 162 LLC sued Hoffmans to quiet title to the landscape easement and prescriptive easement rights.

 

In an interesting twist, Hoffmans cross-complained against 162 LLC for fraud, alleging (among other things) that 162 LLC should have disclosed their claims or interest with respect to the disputed area and that its members had falsely told them that they had no claims. Hoffmans claimed that eight months before close of escrow they complained to Jonathon Owens, one of 162 LLC’s members, that vehicles servicing 162 were crossing over onto 170, and that Owens said he “would take care of it.” Notwithstanding this alleged conversation, the vehicles continued to cross onto 170 but the Hoffmans failed to raise the issue again.

 

The Santa Clara County trial court granted summary adjudication of Hoffmans’ on grounds that, without a preexisting relationship, 162 LLC had no duty to affirmatively disclose anything to Hoffmans. On both causes of action, the trial court found that the Hoffmans hadn’t justifiably relied on 162 LLC’s actions or inactions. The Court of Appeal for the 6^th District upheld the trial court’s ruling.

 

On the concealment (fraudulent non-disclosure) cause of action, the Court of Appeal rejected Hoffmans’ claim that the parties’ mutual interest in purchasing 170 constituted a “preexisting relationship” sufficient to warrant a duty of disclosure. The Court found “no evidence in the record that 162 LLC or its members had any relationship with the Hoffmans.”

 

The Court went on to find that even if 162 LLC had owed Hoffmans a duty to disclose their easement claims prior to close of escrow, the Hoffmans’ fraud claims failed because they could not establish reliance. In order to satisfy the reliance element of actionable fraud, the purported reliance must be reasonable or justified. The Court first found that Steven Hoffman’s status, sophistication and experience was relevant to the determination of reasonable reliance. Hoffman was an “experienced real estate agent who had owned several businesses and owned several pieces of real property.” The Court explained that it was unreasonable as a matter of law for someone of Hoffman’s sophistication and experience to take no action, and fail to even make any further inquiry, while observing the tenants of 162 drive over the disputed area for eight months which was a “common occurrence” as the Hoffmans admitted at deposition.

 

On the fraud claim, while the Court appeared quite dubious of the Hoffmans’ argument that Owens’ statement that he “would take care of it” constituted an actionable promise, since it might be too vague to be enforceable even if it constituted a promise, the Hoffmans could not in any event establish reasonable reliance as a matter of law based on the analysis above.

 

This case is perhaps most interesting for what it did not do – the Court resisted the attempt to extend disclosure rules to third parties without any preexisting relationship. Requiring the owners of neighboring properties to essentially become part of their neighbor’s real estate transaction would have had a long-reaching, and potentially devastating, impact on almost every real estate transaction in California.

 

Hoffman v. 162 North Wolfe (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1178.

(06/15)