Yearly Archives: 2019

Meandering about Lakefront Boundaries

If you own waterfront property, where is your property boundary, and who is your adjacent parcel owner on the waterfront?

At Lake Tahoe and many other inland (“non-tidal”) bodies of water, the boundary between the waterfront property (a/k/a the “upland” parcel) and the body of water is defined by a \ line that roughly parallels the water’s edge.  This line is called “meander line.”  In 1861 and 1875, prior to the sale of government lands around Lake Tahoe, government surveyors created a meander line along the edge of Lake Tahoe. The meander line is generally some distance landward from the water’s edge (not the actual high water mark) and was used to determine the acreage and price of the lands to be sold by the federal government to the original land patent holders.

State and federal law provide that when title to waterfront property is described by a meander line of a government survey, or by a subsequent subdivision of the same land bounded by the meander line, the title of the upland owner extends to the body of water itself.   So, just how far does the parcel extend toward the body of water?

If an inland body of water is navigable – like Lake Tahoe – the State owns the lakebed as it existed at the time of statehood (which typically means before there were dams, or artificial raising and lowering of the lake level).  In Nevada, a 1979 statute established the boundary line of the lakebed at 6,223 feet, Lake Tahoe datum, which approximates the lake’s ordinary low water level.  Accordingly, a deed conveying lakefront land on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe that uses the old government survey meander line as the boundary conveys title all the way to the lakebed at 6,223 feet.  This means your neighbor along the water’s edge is the State of Nevada.  

Similar rules apply in California. Generally, the owner of the upland, when it borders on tidal waters, takes to ordinary high-water mark; when it borders upon a navigable lake or stream, where there is no tide, the owner takes to the edge of the lake or stream, at low-water mark; when it borders upon any other water, the owner takes to the middle of the lake or stream. In Tahoe where there is no tide, the rights of the owner to low-water mark are included in the conveyance.

In California, even though a private landowner’s title extends to the ordinary low water mark, there is an easement or public trust under which the general public may recreate in the land area that lies between the ordinary low and high-water marks.  Nevada recognizes the public trust doctrine in certain instances, but does not recognize a right of the public to sunbathe or recreate in the area between low and high water. Waterfront land is usually the most valuable property in any particular market.  As you can see, there are some unique rules that apply to valuable land with waterfront boundaries.  If you have questions about your waterfront boundaries, please call Incline Law Group, LLP.

Looking out for Fido in California Divorce

In our society, dogs and other pets are viewed as beloved members of the family, with many referring to them as “fur babies” or “children”.  During a divorce proceeding, the care and custody of the family pet is often a large concern.  However, until recently, there has been no statutory guidance to tell courts how to handle this difficult issue. 

The lack of guidance essentially left individual judge’s discretion to determine how divorcing parties split a shared pet or whether to even entertain argument on the issue.  In some cases, the court would follow a property analysis, attempt to identify the person who paid for the pet’s adoption or purchase fees, and deem that person the pet’s owner. In other cases, there was no mention at all of the pet and their post-divorce fate.  Even if a court did make orders for the placement of the pet, typically no further orders were made about the requirement to provide ongoing care for the pet.

There have been extremes on both ends. In a 2002 case in Southern California, a compassionate judge ordered that parties arguing about their dog submit to bonding tests with an animal behaviorist to determine where the dog should live. On the opposite end of the spectrum, a Pennsylvania appellate court dismissed an issue regarding custody of a dog stating it was “analogous in the law, to a visitation schedule for a table or lamp”.

California, often willing to take the lead in expanding social jurisprudence, has now adopted a statute to address this issue.  California adopted Family Code Section 2605 effective January 1, 2019. Under this statute, courts can now assign sole or joint ownership of a community property pet taking into account the best interests of the pet and which party is better suited to fulfill the pet’s needs. The court can even make temporary orders regarding a pet’s care before a final judgment of dissolution is entered, which can include shared custody with time sharing arrangements between the two households. 

As California is often a “trend setter”, it will be interesting to see if more states follow by enacting legislation to address pets in divorce situations.

Attention Nevada Businesses: Changes To The Commerce Tax Filing Requirements

Attention Nevada Businesses: Changes to the Commerce Tax Filing Requirements

Our recent 2019 legislative session has resulted in a change to commerce tax filing requirements.  When the commerce tax was instituted in 2017, every business was required to file an annual return with the Department of Taxation.  Senate Bill 497 (SB 497) has removed the requirement for certain business entities from filing an annual commerce tax return with the Department of Taxation—specifically, those with a gross revenue of $4,000,000 or less no longer need to file a return. The law is effective for the 2018-2019 taxable year as well as future tax years. If the Nevada gross revenue for a business from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019 was over $4,000,000, that business is still required to file a commerce tax return on or before August 14th, 2019. In the event that an entity’s gross revenue exceeds the $4,000,000 threshold in a future year, it is the business owner’s responsibility to file a return for the year. Failure to file may result in the assessment of penalty and interest.

California Property Tax Exemptions

The majority of people who live in or near California have heard the term Prop 13 at some time or another.  Prop 13 caps increases in property taxes if the property owner meets certain requirements.  A somewhat less known law in California is Prop 60 and Prop 90 (sometimes referred to as Prop 60/90), which amended the California Constitution.  This exemption allows a resident that is 55 or older, in certain circumstances, to sell his/her property and replace it with another while maintaining the Prop 13 tax basis on the original property.  There are many restrictions and rules to using Prop 60/90, some of which are discussed below.

To qualify for
Prop 60/90, the resident must be over the age of 55 or a severely and permanently disabled person.  Next, the replacement dwelling must be of equal or lesser value and be purchased within two years of the sale of the original property.  In most circumstances, this exemption may only be used once.

Ten counties have adopted ordinances that allow residents to take advantage of Prop 60/90 even when relocating to/from other counties.  However, if your property is not located in one of these counties the replacement property must be in the same county as the original property. There are other requirements that must be met under Prop 60/90 but this law can be a great way for someone to relocate while maintaining their property tax basis.  This allows for mobility of many seasoned Californians looking to downsize.  If you would like to learn more about this property tax exemption and whether you qualify, do not hesitate to contact our office.

Call Now Button