Gomes

Gomes v. County of Mendocino

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 785·37 Cal. App. 4th 977·44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 93·44 Cal. Rptr. 93·95 Daily Journal DAR 11013
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 14, 1995A068276California4,177 words

Opinion

Opinion

Strankman, J.

The facts in this case are uncomplicated and undisputed, but the same cannot be said about the pertinent law. At issue is the applicability of Government Code section 66499.20/2, a seldom cited section of the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, § 66410 et seq.) (the Act). The section provides in part, “Subdivided lands may be merged and resubdivided without reverting to acreage by complying with all the applicable requirements for the subdivision of land as provided by [the Act] and any local ordinances adopted pursuant thereto.” We agree with the trial court and hold that a 1976 subdivision of property in Mendocino County (the County) into four parcels was a resubdivision of subdivided lands within the meaning of section 66499.201/2. Therefore appellant, the present owner of one of those parcels, was not entitled to five certificates of compliance based on five old patents underlying his parcel.

Factual and Procedural Background

Before 1975, Clayton Orr acquired approximately 3,725 acres near Cave Creek in the County. Many years earlier that property had been conveyed from government ownership to various individuals at different times by patents, creating separate parcels.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.