PLANNING & BUILDING INSPECTION. Dale Ellis, AICP Assistant Director of Planning and Building Inspection
|
|
- Grant Peters
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 MEMORANDUM PLANNING & BUILDING INSPECTION County of Monterey Date: June 17, 2003 To: From: Members of the Planning Commission Dale Ellis, AICP Assistant Director of Planning and Building Inspection Subject: Consider an appeal of Karl and Lisa Kleissner to the Director's administrative decision that a leased parcel does not qualify for a certificate of compliance. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Consider the appeal; 2. Adopt a Resolution of Intent to deny the appeal and affirm the administrative decision; and, 3. Continue the hearing to July 30, 2003 for preparation and adoption of reasons for the affirmation of the administrative decision and findings and evidence, if necessary. SUMMARY Karl and Lisa Kleissner requested a certificate of compliance for a leased parcel of land in the Big Sur area. After extensive discussion and review with County Counsel, it was determined that the parcel did not qualify for a certificate of compliance. The decision involved an administrative interpretation that the execution of a lease in 1968 did not create a parcel legally cognizable under the Subdivision Map Act (SMA). That administrative interpretation has been appealed to the Planning Commission. There is no disagreement as to the underlying facts relevant to the issues addressed in the Appeal. Certificates of compliance are provided for under Section of the Subdivision Map Act. Essentially, a certificate of compliance is a determination that a parcel, at the time it was created, complied with all applicable requirements for creation of a parcel and is therefore considered to be a lot of record. The certificate is recorded and includes the following statement that relates to the effect of the certificate: This certificate relates only to issues of compliance or noncompliance with the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto. The parcel described herein may be sold, leased, or financed without further compliance with the Subdivision Map Act or any local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto. Development of the parcel may require issuance of a permit or permits, or other grant or grants of approval.
2 BACKGROUND FACTS The Kleissners own a parcel of land ( original parcel ) in the Big Sur area. They applied for a certificate of compliance for a portion of that land ( leasehold ) believed by them to have been created by lease within the original parcel. The boundaries of the leasehold were formed by a 99 year lease executed in May, 1968, and recorded in June, The leasehold was never designated a parcel on a recorded map. Title to the property, (leasehold) has never been separately conveyed, neither prior to nor subsequent to the execution of the 99 year lease. The 99 year lease was granted by John Robert Louis Lange to Robert F. Coppla and Marilyn Joyce Coppla. On the same date the lease was recorded, another document, signed by Mr. Lange, was recorded in which Mr. Lange made Robert F. Coppla and Marilyn Joyce Coppla the legal heirs to Lot one... (the leasehold). An Affidavit of Death of Joint Tenant was recorded July 3, 1980, stating that John Robert Louis Lange died July 1, A quitclaim deed was recorded Dec. 7, 1979, stating that Robert F. Coppla and Marilyn Joyce Coppla quitclaimed the leasehold to Selma J. Vining, as Executrix of the Will of John Robert Louis Lange. There has been no evidence presented to indicate that the title to the property (leasehold) has been separately conveyed as a parcel since the recording of the quitclaim. SUMMARY OF APPEAL AND RESPONSE: Applicant believes that the effect of the 99 year lease was to divide the original parcel into three separate lots with the leasehold in the middle of the two remaining lots, thereby creating a legal lot which warrants a certificate of compliance. Applicant states that the lease was a division of land which created a separate and legal parcel. Applicant then relies on the presumption, under Government Code Section to conclude that the leasehold is a legally cognizable parcel. Applicant is, in effect, asking that a subdivision of three parcels be recognized without submission of a map under the SMA. The SMA is the primary regulatory control governing the subdivision of property in California. The Act vests the regulation and control of design and improvements in local agencies. Under the present SMA, maps are required for all subdivisions of property. The Act seeks to encourage and facilitate orderly community development. Maps are approved only after extensive review and consideration of many factors including, but not limited to, suitability for development, adequacy of infrastructure, preservation of sensitive lands and resources and dedications. Exceptions to these controls should be narrowly construed. Our Department and County Counsel believe that Section does not apply to the leasehold in this case. Government Code Section is a grandfather provision which provides that lots created as a result of a division of land prior to March, 1972, are presumed to have been legally created. Obviously, for this section to apply, a lot must have been created and further, such creation must have resulted from division of land. Neither apply here. The 1968 lease did not create a parcel legally cognizable under the SMA, nor was it created as a result of a division of land. A lease is a transfer of possessory interest. It is not a conveyance of title and does not
3 create a legally cognizable parcel warranting a certificate of compliance. The boundaries of a leased premises do not establish a legally cognizable parcel. When a lease terminates, the boundaries of the leased premises it simply ceases to exist. There is no conveyance or reconveyance of the title to the underlying property or the other rights involved. The lease simply terminates, the boundaries cease to exist and all rights revert to the owner of the underlying fee. This lease did not create a legally cognizable parcel. Further, there was no division of land as a result of the lease executed in Pursuant to the law in effect in 1968, dividing property into four or fewer lots did not, by definition, constitute a subdivision. Finally, Appellant has produced no authority to show otherwise. There is no other basis on which it may be argued that the leased premises in this case created a legally cognizable parcel. There has been no evidence presented that title to this property as a separate parcel has ever been conveyed, has ever been designated a parcel on a subdivision map, or has ever been sold or transferred. There is simply no evidence that a legally cognizable parcel has ever been created. Each of the specific bases raised in the Appeal is addressed in Attachment B. OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT County Counsel concurs with this recommendation. cc: County Counsel, Appellants Attachments: Attachment B: Kleissner appeal; Attachment B: Individual Responses to Each of the Issues Raised In Appellant s Appeal
4 ATTACHMENT B INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN APPEAL Following is a response to each issue raised by Appellant in the order raised in the appeal: ISSUE: The California Subdivision Map Act s Certification Program (Page 3 of Appeal) Appellant argues that the presumption presented in Section (a) applies to the leased premises leased under the 99 year lease. RESPONSE: Government Code Section (a) states in relevant part,...any parcel created prior to March 4, 1972 shall be conclusively presumed to have been lawfully created if the parcel resulted from a division of land... (emphasis added) The primary requirement for the application of the presumption to a parcel is that the parcel has been created. If created, it must have resulted from a division of land. Applicant s contentions fail on both accounts. First, the California Supreme Court has recently addressed the creation of parcels in the context of another grandfather provision found in the SMA. In that case, the Supreme Court stated that a grandfather provision of the SMA (Section ), also addressing the creation of lots, does not provide a basis for legal recognition of lots in the first instance and that unless an applicant can provide authority that a parcel has been created the reliance on the grandfather section is misplaced. (Gardner v. County of Sonoma (2003) 29 Cal. 4 th 990) Appellants provide no authority for the proposition that a lease creates a legally cognizable parcel for purposes of the presumption in Section Since they cannot provide such authority, their reliance on Section is misplaced. The word create as used in these grandfather sections of the SMA means to form a legally cognizable parcel under the Subdivision Map Act. There is no evidence that the legislature intended to provide that a previous lease of land, be deemed a creation of a parcel legally cognizable under the SMA and warranting a certificate of compliance. A lease is a transfer of possessory interest. It does not involve any transfer or conveyance of title or changes in the ownership or boundaries of the underlying fee. Upon termination of a lease, there is no conveyance or reconveyance of the rights involved, the lease simply terminates and all rights revert to the owner of the underlying fee. There is no reason for the legislature to provide that a lease creates a legally cognizable parcel and there has been no authority produced on which to base such a contention. Second, if created, the parcel must have resulted from a division of land. Applicants have not shown that this lease resulted from a division of land. This lease was not a subdivision or division of land subject to the
5 subdivision statutes in effect in If it were a subdivision or division of land under the SMA, a parcel or final map would have been required. In May, 1968, at the time of this lease, the statutory regulation of the subdivision of land was found in the Business and Professions Code. Section 11535(b) of that Code stated: Subdivision does not include any parcel or parcels of land which is divided into four or less parcels. Since this lease involved dividing a parcel into three pieces, it was by definition, not a subdivision and the SMA did not apply. The lease in this case was not a subdivision under the SMA and did not create a parcel legally cognizable under the SMA. The grandfather provision of Section does not apply. ISSUE: Written Opinions from the County of Monterey s County Counsel Office (Pages 3-5 of Appeal) Appellant claims that a prior opinion issued by the County Counsel s Office states that the term division derives its meaning from the statutory definition of subdivision and that the execution of a deed of trust creates a new parcel pursuant to Section , and that this supports applicant s position. RESPONSE: This argument lacks merit. The earlier opinion is inconsequential because it addresses a deed of trust, which is different than a lease. A deed of trust involves an actual conveyance of a fee simple estate, whereas, a lease does not. A lease conveys a possessory interest only, it does not convey the underlying fee and it does not change the ownership or boundaries of the underlying fee. Rather, upon termination of the lease, the rights revert to the fee holder. The appeal quotes extensively from the earlier opinion, but stops short of an important part of the opinion. The paragraph following the last one quoted in the Appeal states in part: With a trust deed, legal title is actually conveyed to the trustee and remains there (Emphasis added). With a lease, only a possessory interest is transferred, and even that reverts to the owner upon termination of the lease. The title to the underlying fee is not conveyed by a lease. The opinion concerning a deed of trust is not necessarily applicable to a case involving a lease. Further, while the earlier opinion is not inconsistent with the present opinion, even if it were, it would not necessarily control this opinion. ISSUE: The Monterey County Code (Pages 5-6 of Appeal) Appellant claims that since Monterey County Code Section (A)(1) (sic)(we believe this was intended to be (A)(1)) states that a contract of sale or deed of trust recorded before March 7, 1972, is sufficient to create a new parcel, a lease is sufficient to create a new parcel. RESPONSE: It is apparent from the face of MCC Section (A)(1) that it this provision was not intended to apply to leases. Section (A)(1) does not mention leases. This Section provides that a parcel is deemed created where it was conveyed by a deed, deed of trust or bonafide contract of sale... There is no provision for a lease. The basic requirement is that written evidence be presented showing the property was conveyed by a separate document as a separate parcel and states: Evidence may be in the form of a contact of sale, grant deed, or deed of trust...or other evidence such as copies of receipts for installment payments, etc., or similar written documentation which establishes a bona fide conveyance. It is particularly telling that the extensive listing of examples do not include a lease, leasehold,
6 lessee, etc., or anything similar. There is reference only to documents evidencing a sale or transfer of title. As mentioned above, a lease does not involve the sale or transfer of title. The omission of any inclusion of leases, etc, in these provisions indicates there was no intent to include them. ISSUE: The California Subdivision Map Act s Prior Compliance Exemption (Pages 6-7 of Appeal) Applicant asserts that Government Code Section exempts this leased parcel from the SMA s general prohibition on selling, leasing or financing real property for which a parcel map is required since it was leased in compliance with or was exempt from regulation at the time the lease was executed. RESPONSE: Applicant s contention lacks merit. To the extent that G.C. Section (d) applies to the lease in this case, it applies only to the lease executed in Any new sale or lease would have to comply with the SMA. The 1968 lease ceased to exist due to the quitclaim executed in 1979, therefore, Section (d) has no application at all in this case. ISSUE: The Quitclaim Deed (Pages 7-8 of Appeal) Applicant states that the County has taken a position that the lease created a legal parcel which later merged into an unspecified larger estate on delivery of the quitclaim deed. Applicant also states that County asserts a merger argument. RESPONSE: County does not take the position that the lease created a legal parcel. In fact, County asserts just the opposite, i.e. the lease did not create a legal parcel. Regarding the quitclaim, the County simply asserts that as a result of the quitclaim deed, executed by the Copplas and recorded in December, 1979, all rights in the property, including possessory rights under the lease, were conveyed to the executor of Mr. Lange s estate, holder of title to the underlying fee. The lease thereby ostensibly terminated and the leasehold ceased to exist. There was no evidence nor authority presented to show that the lease or leasehold survived this quitclaim. Regarding merger, County does not assert a merger argument. For merger to apply, there must be an existing parcel. It is County s position that a legally cognizable parcel was not created by the lease and therefore there was no existing parcel. Regarding the lease, the quitclaim did not convey title to the fee, it simply terminated the lease.
STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT. } Appeal of Robustelli Realty } Docket No Vtec } Decision on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment
STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT } Appeal of Robustelli Realty } Docket No. 255-12-05 Vtec } Decision on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment Appellant Robustelli Realty (Robustelli) appealed from the
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS NATHAN KLOOSTER, Petitioner-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION December 15, 2009 9:10 a.m. v No. 286013 Tax Tribunal CITY OF CHARLEVOIX, LC No. 00-323883 Respondent-Appellee.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WILLIAM KULINSKI, RONALD KULINSKI, and RUSSELL KULINSKI, UNPUBLISHED December 9, 2014 Plaintiffs-Appellees, v No. 318091 Lenawee Circuit Court ILENE KULINSKI, LC No.
More informationPresent: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ.
Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ. MCCARTHY HOLDINGS LLC OPINION BY v. Record No. 101031 JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN September 16, 2011 VINCENT W. BURGHER, III FROM THE CIRCUIT
More informationESCROW AGREEMENT. Relating to the advance crossover refunding of the outstanding
ESCROW AGREEMENT Relating to the advance crossover refunding of the outstanding $11,998,678.35 aggregate denominational amount Piedmont Unified School District (Alameda County, California) General Obligation
More informationS18A0430. CLAYTON COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS v. ALDEASA ATLANTA JOINT VENTURE.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: June 18, 2018 S18A0430. CLAYTON COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS v. ALDEASA ATLANTA JOINT VENTURE. BENHAM, Justice. This case presents the issue of whether the contract
More informationOPINION BY: [*1] DANIEL E. LUNGREN, Attorney General (ANTHONY S. Da VIGO, Deputy Attorney General)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA No. 94 304 77 Op. Atty Gen. Cal. 185 July 21, 1994 OPINION BY: [*1] DANIEL E. LUNGREN, Attorney General (ANTHONY S. Da VIGO, Deputy Attorney General) OPINION:
More informationPLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THIS QUESTION BOOKLET FROM THE EXAM ROOM. PROPERTY: SAMPLE OBJECTIVE QUESTIONS. Professor Donahue. Date. Time
Exam Identification Number: PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THIS QUESTION BOOKLET FROM THE EXAM ROOM. PROPERTY: SAMPLE OBJECTIVE QUESTIONS Professor Donahue Date Time PART I [I mocked this up to make it look as much
More informationGOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
Attachment 9 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66451.10-66451.24 66451.10. (a) Notwithstanding Section 66424, except as is otherwise provided for in this article, two or more contiguous parcels or units of land
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FRANK J. NOA, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 13, 2005 v No. 255310 Otsego Circuit Court AGATHA C. NOA, ESTATE OF MICHAEL J. LC No. 03-010202-CH NOA and M&M ENTERPRIZES,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Case No. Appellees. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION BY APPELLANTS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO JAY HOUSEHOLDER, SR., et al. Appellants, Case No. -vs- ERNEST SHANNON, et al. On Appeal From The Jefferson County Court of Appeals Seventh Appellate District Appellees. Court
More informationUNOFFICIAL FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY Official Code of Georgia Annotated (2017)
O.C.G.A. TITLE 44 Chapter 3 Article 6 GEORGIA CODE Copyright 2017 by The State of Georgia All rights reserved. *** Current Through the 2017 Regular Session *** TITLE 44. PROPERTY CHAPTER 3. REGULATION
More informationThis matter having been opened to the Council on Affordable Housing by. applicant Borough of Oceanport, on a motion to exclude from consideration for
NEW JERSEY COUNCIL ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING DOCKET NO. IN THE MATTER OF THE ) Civil Action BOROUGH OF OCEANPORT ) ORDER This matter having been opened to the Council on Affordable Housing by applicant Borough
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Gregory J. Rubino and : Lisa M. Rubino, : Appellants : : v. : No. 1015 C.D. 2013 : Argued: December 9, 2013 Millcreek Township Board : of Supervisors : BEFORE:
More informationCHAPTER Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 229
CHAPTER 2013-240 Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 229 An act relating to land trusts; creating s. 689.073, F.S., and transferring, renumbering, and amending s. 689.071(4)
More informationSAMPLE ANSWERS TO SHORT ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM SPRING 2005 AND SPRING 2006 EXAMS
Question #4 Spring 2005: Gertrude currently holds a Vested Remainder Subject to Open in a Fee Simple Absolute. Gertrude s interest is in the language to my grandchildren at the end of the devise because
More informationAnswers to Estates and Future Interests Problems in the Book and Some More Problems
Answers to Estates and Future Interests Problems in the Book and Some More Problems Remember, I will not hold you to a knowledge of the common-law destructibility rule, though the answers to some of these
More informationSTATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION. Petitioners, RULING AND ORDER JENNIFER E. NASHOLD, CHAIRPERSON:
STATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION ROBERT J. LAWRENCE AND CHARLES M. KEMPLER (DEC'D), DOCKET NO. 05-T-83 Petitioners, vs. RULING AND ORDER WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. JENNIFER E.
More informationQUESTION 2: SELECTED ANSWER A
QUESTION 2: SELECTED ANSWER A 1. Interests in Greenacre To determine who has what interest in Greenacre (G), the validity and effect of each transfer/agreement must be determined. Generally, property may
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC07-1079 DAVID J. LEVINE, et al, v. Appellants, JANICE HIRSHON, etc., et al, Appellees. REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS On Questions and Conflict of Decisions Certified by
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: OCTOBER 2, 2009; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2008-CA-002271-MR DRUSCILLA WOOLUM, LAVETTA HIGGINS MAHAN, RUFUS DEE HIGGINS, AND ARLINDA D. HENRY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 2, 2016 Session
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 2, 2016 Session DARRYL F. BRYANT, SR. v. DARRYL F. BRYANT, JR. Appeal by Permission from the Court of Appeals Chancery Court for Davidson County No.
More informationBAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE January 11, 2008 JANET SIMMONS
PRESENT: All the Justices BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC OPINION BY v. Record No. 062715 JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE January 11, 2008 JANET SIMMONS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY James V. Lane, Judge
More informationORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3633 OF 2009 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4361 OF 2010
1 agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3633 OF 2009 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4361 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax 25, C/11, Room
More informationKatehis v City of New York 2015 NY Slip Op 30787(U) April 17, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Kevin J.
Katehis v City of New York 2015 NY Slip Op 30787(U) April 17, 2015 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 705406/2013 Judge: Kevin J. Kerrigan Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY
More informationWilliam S. Graessle of William S. Graessle, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees. In this eminent domain action, the JEA appeals a final order awarding
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JEA, A BODY POLITIC AND CORPORATE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF
More informationH 7816 AS AMENDED S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D
======== LC001 ======== 01 -- H 1 AS AMENDED S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY JANUARY SESSION, A.D. 01 A N A C T RELATING TO TAXATION -- TAX SALES Introduced By: Representative Robert
More information1. The earliest method of transferring title to real property was by the of by the owner to another.
CHAPTER 7 SHORT-ANSWER QUESTIONS 1. The earliest method of transferring title to real property was by the of by the owner to another. 2. There are at present four basic ways land can be transferred from
More informationLarry E. Levy and Loren E. Levy of The Levy Law Firm, Tallahassee for Appellant/Cross-Appellee Rick Barnett.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA RICK BARNETT, as Property Appraiser of Bay County, Florida, and PEGGY BRANNON, as the Tax Collector for Bay County, Florida, Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
More informationESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT
26085-06 JH:WJK:JAW 10/06/14 ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT by and between the SELMA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT and THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY N.A., as Escrow Bank Dated, 2014 Relating
More informationThese related appeals concern the rights of certain sign companies to. construct billboards in areas formerly located in unincorporated Fulton
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: June 13, 2011 S11A0023. FULTON COUNTY et al. v. ACTION OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, JV et al. S11A0101. CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS et al. v. ACTION OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, JV et
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,364 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JAMES F. SHEPHERD, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,364 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JAMES F. SHEPHERD, Appellee, v. PAULINE THOMPSON, et al., Appellants. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2017. Affirmed. Appeal
More informationv. Case No SUMMARY FINAL ORDER Comes now, the undersigned arbitrator, and issues this summary final order as
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION Federal National Mortgage Association,
More informationADVERSE INTERESTS [IDENTIFY SOURCE OF INFORMATION], AND OF ALL PERSONS CLAIMING THEREUNDER.
ADVERSE INTERESTS ADVERSE INTERESTS DISCLOSED BY SEARCH This exception should be raised where information is encountered in the course of an examination of title which discloses a stranger to the title
More informationFlorida Attorney General Advisory Legal Opinion
Number: AGO 2008-44 Date: August 28, 2008 Subject: Homestead Exemption Florida Attorney General Advisory Legal Opinion Mr. Loren E. Levy The Levy Law Firm 1828 Riggins Lane Tallahassee, Florida 32308 RE:
More informationThis division may be cited as the Subdivision Map Act.
CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66410-66413.5 66410. This division may be cited as the Subdivision Map Act. 66411. Regulation and control of the design and improvement of subdivisions are vested
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION LAS BRISAS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW
More informationENTRY ORDER 2007 VT 109 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO MARCH TERM, 2007
In re Northern Acres, LLC (2006-324) 2007 VT 109 [Filed 08-Oct-2007] ENTRY ORDER 2007 VT 109 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2006-324 MARCH TERM, 2007 In re Northern Acres, LLC } APPEALED FROM: } } } Environmental
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 16, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D15-1575 Lower Tribunal No. 14-201-K Norma Barton,
More informationMONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING & BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT st AVENUE MARINA, CA (831) FAX: (831)
MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING & BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT 2620 1st AVENUE MARINA, CA 93933 (831) 883-7500 FAX: (831)384-3261 MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting: September 8, 2004 8:00 a.m. Agenda
More informationDATE: September 10, 2013 RE: Seawall Review - Park Shore - Preliminary Legal and Title Review Report
TO: FROM: CC: Hon. John F. Sorey III, Mayor & Naples City Council Stephen E. Thompson & Robert D. Pritt A. William Moss, City Manager DATE: September 10, 2013 RE: Seawall Review - Park Shore - Preliminary
More informationPRESENTED AT. 19 th Annual Estate Planning, Guardianship and Elder Law Conference. August 2, 3-4, 2017 Galveston, Texas
PRESENTED AT 19 th Annual Estate Planning, Guardianship and Elder Law Conference August 2, 3-4, 2017 Galveston, Texas Which Way Do I Go? Title Issues Affecting Deeds of Gift, Enhanced Life Estate Deeds,
More informationPRESENT: Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J.
PRESENT: Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J. W&W PARTNERSHIP OPINION BY v. Record No. 090328 JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN February 25, 2010 PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION NEIL A. CRAIG AND : ROSALIE T. CRAIG, : Plaintiffs : vs. : NO: 09-1880 : JAMES DULCEY AND : KATHLEEN DULCEY, : Defendants : James
More informationESCROW AGREEMENT. between the COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN. and. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Agent. Dated as of December 1, 2017
OHS DRAFT 11/10/2017 ESCROW AGREEMENT between the COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Escrow Agent Dated as of December 1, 2017 Relating to the SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 05/15/2015 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationSTANDARD MASTER ADDENDUM
Page 1 of 8 STANDARD MASTER ADDENDUM This Standard Master Addendum (hereinafter the SMA ) is entered into by the and (together referred to hereinafter as the Parties ) in conjunction with the Purchase
More informationCertiorari not Applied for COUNSEL
1 SANDOVAL COUNTY BD. OF COMM'RS V. RUIZ, 1995-NMCA-023, 119 N.M. 586, 893 P.2d 482 (Ct. App. 1995) SANDOVAL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Plaintiff, vs. BEN RUIZ and MARGARET RUIZ, his wife, Defendants-Appellees,
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA International Development : Corporation, : Appellant : : v. : No. 1805 C.D. 2010 : Argued: June 6, 2011 Sherwood B. Davidge and Calvery : Crary, their heirs, executors,
More informationP.F. WOOD, APPELLANT, V. C. MANDRILLA, RESPONDENT. SAC. NO SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court of California,Department Two. 167 Cal. 607 {Cal. 1914) WOOD V. MANDRILLA P.F. WOOD, APPELLANT, V. C. MANDRILLA, RESPONDENT. SAC. NO. 2089. SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA,DEPARTMENT TWO. APRIL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS JOHN S. PANGELINAN, ) APPEAL NO. 95-013 ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 92-1076 Plaintiff/Appellee, ) ) vs. ) ) JULIANA L. ITAMAN, MAGDALENA
More informationOhio s Marketable Title Act and Dormant Mineral Act: Siblings or Distant Cousins?
Ohio s Marketable Title Act and Dormant Mineral Act: Siblings or Distant Cousins? James ( Jay ) A. Carr II Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP Craig Sweeney Bricker & Eckler LLP History & Purpose of the
More informationH 7816 S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D
LC001 01 -- H 1 S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY JANUARY SESSION, A.D. 01 A N A C T RELATING TO TAXATION -- TAX SALES Introduced By: Representative Robert E. Craven Date Introduced:
More informationLarry E. Levy and Loren E. Levy of The Levy Law Firm, Tallahassee for Appellant/Cross-Appellee Rick Barnett.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA RICK BARNETT, as Property Appraiser of Bay County, Florida, and PEGGY BRANNON, as the Tax Collector for Bay County, Florida, Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
More informationUnderstanding Real Property Interests and Deeds» By Brad Dashoff and John Antonacci. Understanding Real Property Interests and Deeds
A service of the ABA General Practice, Solo & Small Firm Division Law Trends & News PRACTICE AREA NEWSLETTER REAL ESTATE Understanding Real Property Interests and Deeds» By Brad Dashoff and John Antonacci
More informationSheree Dyer, et al. v. Eva Criegler, et al., No. 2856, September Term, 2000 NEGLIGENCE LEAD POISONING
HEADNOTE: Sheree Dyer, et al. v. Eva Criegler, et al., No. 2856, September Term, 2000 NEGLIGENCE LEAD POISONING A real estate agent or broker who lists and promotes residential property for rental is not
More informationADAMS V. BLUMENSHINE, 1922-NMSC-010, 27 N.M. 643, 204 P. 66 (S. Ct. 1922) ADAMS et al. vs. BLUMENSHINE
1 ADAMS V. BLUMENSHINE, 1922-NMSC-010, 27 N.M. 643, 204 P. 66 (S. Ct. 1922) ADAMS et al. vs. BLUMENSHINE No. 2646 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1922-NMSC-010, 27 N.M. 643, 204 P. 66 January 13, 1922 Appeal
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE FILED. December 9, Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk AT KNOXVILLE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE FILED December 9, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk AT KNOXVILLE E1998-00412-COA-R3-CV WESTSIDE HEALTH AND RACQUET C/A NO. 03A01-9810-CH-00332 CLUB, INC.,
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC11-2231 1108 ARIOLA, LLC, et al., Petitioners, vs. CHRIS JONES, etc., et al., Respondents. [March 20, 2014] CANADY, J. In this case, we consider whether the improvements
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Filed 10/22/14 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE BURIEN, LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B250182 (Los Angeles County Super.
More informationESCROW AGREEMENT. by and among HARBOR DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES. and. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee and as Escrow Agent
NP Draft 6/25/14 ESCROW AGREEMENT by and among HARBOR DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee and as Escrow Agent Dated 1, 2014 relating to: Harbor Department
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B250925
Filed 5/8/15 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE PAUL PETERSON et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. B250925 (Los Angeles
More informationSTATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT } } } } } Decision and Order on Motions for Partial Summary Judgment
STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT In re: Appeal of Paul and Caroline Alexander, Trustees of the Paul and Caroline Alexander Trust Docket No. 194-10-99 Vtec Decision and Order on Motions for Partial
More informationAnswer A to Question 5
Answer A to Question 5 Betty and Ed s Interests Ann, Betty, and Celia originally took title to the condo as joint tenants with right of survivorship. A joint tenancy is characterized by the four unities
More informationREAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT This Real Estate Purchase Agreement ( Agreement ) is made this day of, 2016 by and between the City of Arapahoe, Nebraska, a municipal corporation ( Seller ), and and, husband
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL: 01/11/2008 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationRESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Property Owners Association of Arundel-on-the-Bay, Inc.
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF ARUNDEL-ON-THE-BAY, INC., et al. Plaintiffs/Counter Defendant v. JOYCE Q MCMANUS Defendant/Counter Plaintiff * IN THE * CIRCUIT COURT * OF MARYLAND * FOR * ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY
More information(Chapter 277, Laws of 2018; SSB 6175)
MAP AND SURVEY PREPARATION GUIDELINES FOR CONDOMINIUMS, COOPERATIVES AND MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNITIES CREATED UNDER WASHINGTON UNIFORM COMMON INTEREST OWNERSHIP ACT WUCIOA (CH. 64.90 RCW) (Chapter 277, Laws
More informationAN ACT RELATIVE TO THE ESTATE OF HOMESTEAD. (see Senate, No ) Approved by the Governor, December 16, 2010
CHAPTER 395 of the Acts of 2010 AN ACT RELATIVE TO THE ESTATE OF HOMESTEAD. (see Senate, No. 2406 ) Approved by the Governor, December 16, 2010 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BANK ONE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 4, 2009 v No. 283824 Macomb Circuit Court FRANK A. VENTIMIGLIO, BRANDA M. LC No. 2006-003118-CH VENTIMIGLIO,
More informationAdvisory Opinion #135
Advisory Opinion #135 Parties: Bruce W. Church and City of LaVerkin Issued: November 29, 2013 TOPIC CATEGORIES: Q: Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures A noncomplying structure may remain in
More informationCHAPTER l5 INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL PROJECT REVENUE BONDS. 74-ll7 Industrial and Commercial Revenue Bonds. l
CHAPTER l5 INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL PROJECT REVENUE BONDS ORDINANCE 74-ll7 Industrial and Commercial Revenue Bonds. l0.29.74 83-l6 Amending definition of "Development Project" contained in Sec. l5-l02.
More informationESCROW AGREEMENT. between the CALIFORNIA AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. and. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A.
DRAFT Attachment 3 ESCROW AGREEMENT between the CALIFORNIA AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A. as Escrow Agent Dated July 1, 2016 relating to the current refunding
More information[Cite as Maggiore v. Kovach, 101 Ohio St.3d 184, 2004-Ohio-722.]
[Cite as Maggiore v. Kovach, 101 Ohio St.3d 184, 2004-Ohio-722.] MAGGIORE, APPELLEE, v. KOVACH, D.B.A. ALL TUNE & LUBE, APPELLANT. [Cite as Maggiore v. Kovach, 101 Ohio St.3d 184, 2004-Ohio-722.] Landlords
More informationTitle Resources Guaranty Company 8111 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX
Washington Underwriting Memo 2014-1 Date: September 12, 2014 From: Gretchen L. Valentine Vice President/Pacific NW Regional Underwriting Counsel To: Re: All Washington Issuing Agents Transfer on Death
More informationIN RE TOWN OF ) SECAUCUS/XCHANGE AT ) SECAUCUS JUNCTION ) OPINION INCLUSIONARY DEVELOPMENT ) DOCKET # /
IN RE TOWN OF ) SECAUCUS/XCHANGE AT ) SECAUCUS JUNCTION ) OPINION INCLUSIONARY DEVELOPMENT ) DOCKET #09-2156/09-2104 This matter comes before the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH or Council) upon the
More informationRelation Back of Exercise of Option Are There Exceptions? By John C. Murray i
Relation Back of Exercise of Option Are There Exceptions? By John C. Murray i In an unusual case decided by the California appellate court several years ago, Wachovia Bank v. Lifetime Industries, Inc.,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON February 25, 2000 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON February 25, 2000 Session TERESA P. CONSTANTINO AND LILA MAE WILLIAMS v. CHARLIE W. WILLIAMS AND GLENDA E. WILLIAMS. An Appeal as of Right from the Chancery
More informationENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO JULY TERM, 2018
Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a crossappellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any
More informationReferred to Committee on Taxation. SUMMARY Revises provisions governing the collection of delinquent property taxes. (BDR )
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. COMMITTEE ON TAXATION (ON BEHALF OF CLARK COUNTY) PREFILED NOVEMBER 0, 0 Referred to Committee on Taxation A.B. SUMMARY Revises provisions governing the collection of delinquent property
More informationESCROW AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE DEFEASANCE OF PORTIONS OF
ESCROW AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE DEFEASANCE OF PORTIONS OF $168,838,667.35 CHABOT-LAS POSITAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California) General Obligation Bonds, Election
More informationTHE PROPERTY (TRANSFER) ACT
PROPERTY (TRANSFER) 1 THE PROPERTY (TRANSFER) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. 3. Assignment, etc., of land must be by deed. 4. Leases, etc., of land must be by deed. 5. Contingent
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC06-2461 DOUGLAS K. RABORN, et al., Appellants, vs. DEBORAH C. MENOTTE, etc., Appellee. [January 10, 2008] BELL, J. We have for review two questions of Florida law certified
More informationMontana Liquor Licenses: Should They Be Leaseable?
Montana Law Review Volume 39 Issue 2 Summer 1978 Article 10 7-1-1978 Montana Liquor Licenses: Should They Be Leaseable? Virginia Bryan Sumner Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/mlr
More informationPRESENT: Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ., and Russell, S.J.
PRESENT: Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ., and Russell, S.J. CHRISTINE DOLBY OPINION BY v. Record No. 091023 JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR. June 10, 2010 CATHERINE DOLBY, ET AL.
More informationVacant Building Registration
j CITY OF RICHLAND HILLS RichIandbllllTX76fl8 PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Phone: (817) 616-3770 4 Fax: (817)616-3808 Vacant Building Registration Indicate application type: C Single Family Q Duplex
More informationESCROW AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE DEFEASANCE OF A PORTION OF
ESCROW AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE DEFEASANCE OF A PORTION OF $55,771,886.25 DESERT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT (Riverside and Imperial Counties, California) 2005 General Obligation Refunding Bonds THIS ESCROW
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2009
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2009 Opinion filed October 14, 2009. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D08-944 Lower Tribunal No. 03-14195
More informationPLEASE NOTE. For more information concerning the history of this Act, please see the Table of Public Acts.
PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to May 13, 2016. It is intended for information and reference purposes only. This
More informationThe parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:
Exhibit 2.4(c) Escrow Agreement ESCROW AGREEMENT This Escrow Agreement, dated as of, 199_ (the "Closing Date"), among, a corporation ("Buyer"),, an individual resident in, ("A"), and, an individual resident
More informationOctober 8, APPEARANCES: For Complainant Woolsey Well Service, L.P. and J & C Operating Co. Dick Marshall Rick Woolsey PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
OIL AND GAS DOCKET NO. 09-0249222 COMMISSION CALLED HEARING ON THE COMPLAINT OF WOOLSEY WELL SERVICE, L.P. AND J & C OPERATING CO. REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE PERMITS ISSUED FOR RSK-STAR LEASE, WELL
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE FILED April 16, 1999 JERRY BOWMAN, Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk Plaintiff/Appellant, Appeal No. VS. 01-A-01-9808-CH-00424 MIDSTATE FINANCE
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Mercer County Citizens for Responsible Development, Robert W. Moors and Marian Moors, Appellants v. No. 703 C.D. 2009 Springfield Township Zoning Hearing No. 704
More informationWALTER A. HEUSCHKEL and BONNIE L. HEUSCHKEL, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants/Appellees,
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationSection 4.1 LAND TITLE
Section 4.1 LAND TITLE PURPOSE... 4-1-1 AUTHORITY... 4-1-1 SCOPE... 4-1-1 REFERENCES... 4-1-1 TRAINING... 4-1-2 FORMS... 4-1-2 DEFINITIONS... 4-1-2 4.1.1 QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF TITLE... 4-1-3 4.1.2 TITLE
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: Sale of Real Property for : Delinquent Tax by Elk County Tax : Claim Bureau held on September 11, : 2000 Parcel known as western one- : No. 740 C.D. 2001
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Appellants :
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Amos S. Lapp and Emma S. Lapp, : : Appellants : : v. : No. 1845 C.D. 2016 : ARGUED: June 5, 2017 Lancaster County Agricultural Preserve : Board : BEFORE: HONORABLE
More informationSenate Bill No. 88 Committee on Judiciary
Senate Bill No. 88 Committee on Judiciary CHAPTER... AN ACT relating to real property; enacting the Uniform Real Property Transfer on Death Act; and providing other matters properly relating thereto. Legislative
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS UNPUBLISHED February 2, 2010 v No. 286870 CITY OF BOYNE CITY, LC No. 00-321687 v No. 286872 TOWNSHIP OF EVELINE, LC No. 00-321688 Before: Bandstra, P.J. and Sawyer and
More informationTITLE 27. LAND ASSIGNMENT LAW CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE, POLICY, DEFINITIONS
TITLE 27. LAND ASSIGNMENT LAW CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE, POLICY, DEFINITIONS 27 M.P.T.L. ch. 1 1 1. Title The title of this Law shall be the Land Assignment Law of the Mashantucket (Western) Pequot Tribe. 27
More information