Erickson

Le Gault v. Erickson

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 167·70 Cal. App. 4th 369·82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 692·99 Daily Journal DAR 1901·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1500
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 26, 1999No. F027661California1,982 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Stone, J.

*371 Opinion

Background

The facts in this appeal are not in dispute. Prior to June 1984, William and Patricia Staunton owned lots Nos. 448, 449, and 450 1 of tract No. 3430 in Kern County. On June 6, 1984, they merged the three lots to create one undivided parcel. At their request, the Kern County Planning Department recorded a certificate of compliance, which certified the described parcel complies with the Subdivision Map Act (hereafter SMA). (Gov. Code, 2 §§ 66410-66499.37. 3 ) The certificate noted “[t]he recordation of this document is evidence of the removal of the lot lines previously existing between the above-noted lots. The lots are hereby merged and may not be divided or offered for sale individually without proper compliance with the Subdivision Map Act.”

Approximately 18 months later, the Stauntons borrowed $35,000 from Melvin J. Erickson, respondent. 4 The loan was secured by a deed of trust and power of sale in which the property taken as security was designated as lot No. 448. Respondent recorded the deed of trust October 3, 1985. He did not conduct a title search.

Several weeks later, the Stauntons borrowed $200,000 from appellants, Lance and Teresa Le Gault.…

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.