(a)The Legislature declares as public policy that:
(1)Real property is a basic resource of the people of the state and should be made freely alienable and marketable to the extent practicable in order to enable and encourage full use and development of the real property, including both surface and subsurface interests.
(2)Interests in real property and defects in titles created at remote times, whether or not of record, often constitute unreasonable restraints on alienation and marketability of real property because the interests are no longer valid or have been abandoned or have otherwise become obsolete.
(3)Such interests and defects produce litigation to clear and quiet titles, cause delays in real property title transactions, and hinder marketability of real property.
(4)Real property title transactions should be possible with economy and expediency. The status and security of recorded real property titles should be determinable to the extent practicable from an examination of recent records only.
(b)It is the purpose of the Legislature in enacting this title to
simplify and facilitate real property title transactions in furtherance of public policy by enabling persons to rely on record title to the extent provided in this title, with respect to the property interests specified in this title, subject only to the limitations expressly provided in this title and notwithstanding any provision or implication to the contrary in any other statute or in the common law. This title shall be liberally construed to effect the legislative purpose.
Notes of Decisions
Union Pac. R.R. v. Santa Fe Pac. Pipelines, Inc., 231 Cal. App. 4th 134 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
“In addition to conveyance of a fee interest to a railroad by individuals or states, methods discussed at various points in trial included, for example, condemnation, quitclaim deeds, purchase, quiet title actions, the California Marketable Record Title Act (Civ. Code, § 880.020…”
Manhattan Loft, LLC v. Mercury Liquors, Inc., 173 Cal. App. 4th 1040 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
“does not expire or expire of record and is not unenforceable pursuant to this title at the time prescribed in this title if within the time an action is commenced to enforce, establish, clear title to, or otherwise affect the interest and a notice of the pendency of the action…”
Severns v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 100 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “However, the Marketable Record Title Act (Civ. Code, § 880.020 et seq.) requires plaintiff or his predecessor(s)-in-interest to record in a timely way an intent to preserve the future interest.”
Aviel v. Ng, 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 200 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
“Subject to provisions extending the expiration date, the duration of the power of sale in a deed of trust is now limited to (1) 10 years from the final maturity date or last date set for payment, if such date is ascertainable from the recorded evidence of indebtedness, or (2) 60…”
Mui Ung v. Koehler, 37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 311 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).
“The Legislature reversed that rule of law in 1982 when it passed the Marketable Record Title Act (Act) (Civ. Code, § 880.020 et seq.), 1 which has been held in prior decisions to impose a time limit on such exercise of either 10 or 60 years from the “final maturity date” of the…”
Slintak v. Buckeye Ret. Co., LLC, 43 Cal. Rptr. 3d 131 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
“The trial court held that Buckeye’s right to foreclose on a deed of trust encumbering Marik’s property had expired under the statute of limitations of the Marketable Record Title Act (MRTA) (Civ. Code, § 880.020 et seq.), 1 and that no exceptions or equitable tolling applied to…”
Walton v. City of Red Bluff, 2 Cal. App. 4th 117 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).
“We requested supplemental briefing on the effect of the marketable record title statutes (Civ. Code, § 880.020 et seq.) on this case.”
NICOLOPULOS v. Superior Court, 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 626 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
“1707 ; Civ. Code, § 880.020.) The statute “effectively abrogates the ‘never outlaws’ rule by limiting the time for exercising the power of sale under a deed of trust.”
Concord & Bay Point Land Co. v. City of Concord, 229 Cal. App. 3d 289 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).
“070, subdivision (b)(1) (part of the Marketable Title Act [Civ. Code, § 880.020 et seq.]), and Code of Civil Procedure sections 318, 319, or 320.”
Schelb v. Stein, 190 Cal. App. 4th 1440 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “In the published portion of this decision, we address the primary issue in this appeal—whether a trust deed securing a promissory note issued in connection with a family law judgment may expire under provisions of the Marketable Record Title Act (MRTA; Civ. Code, § 880.020 et…”
Tesoro Refining & Mktg. Co. v. Rickley CA2/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “Summary adjudication of the recorded easement claim must be reversed because the trial court misapplied the Marketable Record Title Act (Civ. Code, § 880.020 et seq.) (MRTA). The easement was extinguished because Plaintiffs failed to record a notice of intent to preserve the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.