Manning v. County of Humboldt CA1/1

Filed 4/22/15 Manning v. County of Humboldt CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

RENE A. MANNING et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A140736 v. COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, (Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. CV120476) Defendant and Respondent.

Rene and Carol Manning (the Mannings) petitioned for a writ of mandamus requiring the County of Humboldt (County) to issue a certificate of compliance with respect to real property in which the Mannings claimed a life estate. The County had denied the certificate of compliance because the real property was not a parcel in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, § 66410 et seq.; Act). In doing so, the County rejected the Mannings’ claim that a long-standing lot line adjustment rendering the real property noncompliant with the Act was invalid because the Mannings had not received proper notice. The trial court denied the petition, concluding it lacked the authority to require the County to issue a certificate of compliance with respect to the parcel. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND This appeal is grounded in land use transactions and litigation occurring over the course of two decades in Humboldt County. We relate only so much of that history as is necessary for our decision.

In June 2009, the Mannings applied to the County for a certificate of compliance with respect to a 1.19-acre portion of a larger 9.56-acre parcel (the 1.19-acre site). A certificate of compliance, governed by Government Code section 66499.35, represents a determination by the local land use authority that the subject property complies with the Act and applicable local ordinances. (Gov. Code, § 66499.35, subd. (a).) “When parcels are validated by certificates of compliance, they ‘may be sold, leased, or financed without further compliance with the Subdivision Map Act or any local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto.’ ” (Gardner v. County of Sonoma (2003) 29 Cal.4th 990, 998.) The 1.19-acre site had been created as a parcel by a lot line adjustment filed in 1989 by the owner of the property, Hazel Manning (Ms. Manning). In 1997, Ms. Manning executed a document entitled, “Lease Contract for Life-Estate for Rene & Carol Manning” (lease), which leased the 1.19-acre site to the Mannings for the duration of their joint lives. Soon after, a building permit was issued to Ms. Manning for a residence on the 1.19-acre site, and the Mannings built a residence there. Ms. Manning died in 2004. In 1996, the year prior to execution of the lease, Ms. Manning had applied for a second lot line adjustment that was eventually recorded in 1999. The effect of the 1999 lot line adjustment was to incorporate the 1.19-acre site into a larger piece of property owned by Ms. Manning, creating the 9.56-acre parcel and a second, smaller parcel, which Ms. Manning later sold. There appears to be no dispute among the parties that the 1999 lot line adjustment rendered the 1.19-acre site, previously a legal parcel, no longer compliant with the Act. As a result of the 1999 lot line adjustment, the Mannings did not satisfy the requirements for a certificate of compliance with respect to the 1.19-acre site. Recognizing this, they argued in their application that the 1999 lot line adjustment should be disregarded because it had been filed without notice to them. Characterizing the lease as granting them a life estate in the 1.19-acre site, they argued the failure to disregard the 1999 lot line adjustment would result in a deprivation without due process of their property rights.