![]() The various title documents reflecting the conveyances to XPO and Hayward Property included “metes and bounds” descriptions that favored XPO’s claim to the disputed area. XPO and Hayward Property came into conflict over which of their parcels included a disputed area. (XPO), and the other parcel was acquired by Hayward Property, LLC and Crown Enterprises, Inc. One of those parcels was eventually acquired by XPO Logistics Freight, Inc. In 1997, the property’s sole owner recorded a lot line adjustment reconfiguring the four parcels on the 1979 parcel map into two parcels. ![]() Some time before 1997, the Alameda County Assessor divided the entire property, for tax assessment purposes, into three assessor’s parcels, which were enumerated on an unrecorded assessor’s map. In 1979, the property’s sole owner divided the property into four parcels as shown in a recorded parcel map. The XPO case involved title to real property in the City of Hayward, California. Facts: references to APNs in title documents give rise to ownership dispute Hayward Property, LLC - strikes a similar chord. See here for the prior post: Is an APN Sufficient to Describe Property in a Deed of Trust?Īn opinion recently published by California’s First Appellate District - XPO Logistics Freight, Inc. In a prior post from 2020, Money and Dirt covered an opinion from California’s Fourth Appellate District holding that an Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN), by itself, “does not necessarily demonstrate the actual, physical location of a property.” In that case, the court held that a deed of trust with numerous inaccuracies could not be saved by its reference to an APN, and was therefore void.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |