Opinion ID: 2610751
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Belmont Shore-Naples Boundary Settlement (Belmont Agreement)

Text: The primary purpose of this agreement is to settle, or provide a means for settling, the title problems affecting the thousands of persons who live in the settled and subdivided portions of the Alamitos Bay area which were described in section 2(a) of chapter 1688. The source of these problems is the fact that the city has a substantial claim, based upon the 1925 trust grant (see fn. 7, ante ), of paramount legal title to all or part of at least 502 parcels in the section 2(a) area. The claims of the homeowners on the other hand  with the important exception of Steamshovel Channel  are based upon the original Rancho Los Alamitos grant and the 1886 Bixby tideland patents. As indicated above, the settlement of these conflicting claims through litigation would  it is alleged  be practically impossible. A second but related major purpose of the Belmont agreement is to effect the settlement of various boundaries in the section 2(a) area between public tidelands and private tidelands or former tidelands. This aspect of the agreement, which will be explained in greater detail below, has importance relative to private properties which lie at or near the border of tidelands which are to remain public according to the agreement. In general the Belmont agreement provides that the city and state, in exchange for a contribution of $783,500 to be paid into the city's tideland trust fund by the TI Corporation (a real party in interest), will execute a series of conveyances, disclaimers of interest, and boundary agreements  the net effect of which (assuming execution of boundary agreements by other interested parties) will be to settle and fix titles and boundaries in the section 2(a) area in conformity with the claims of present record owners. As to the settled and subdivided portions of section 2(a) lands the Belmont agreement will have two effects. First, the city and state will relinquish, with a few exceptions, all claims that they or either of them might assert on the basis that such lands are public tidelands or submerged lands by virtue of the 1925 trust grant. [10] This aspect of the agreement will solve title and boundary problems relating to all properties within the section 2(a) area except those properties which lie at or near the border of the section 2(a) area. The second effect of the agreement will relate to certain of these border properties. The city and state will execute four boundary agreements which would fix the boundary between certain border and public lands at the limit of the section 2(a) area. These supplementary boundary agreements, of course, would not become effective until executed by the respective border owners. Thus, a border owner who was satisfied with the section 2(a) line as his boundary would execute the agreement and thereby fix the boundary; a border owner who was not so satisfied could refuse to execute the agreement and seek to determine the true boundary by other means. This arrangement is consistent with the provisions of section 8 of chapter 1688. The Belmont agreement will also disclaim public interest relative to certain section 2(b) lands which were among those high and dry lands which were apparently inadvertently omitted from the official plat of the original rancho grant (1874).