## Facts

- K. Otto Saterstrom and Anna O. Saterstrom sued to quiet title to real property, relying solely on record title derived from a trustee’s sale under a deed of trust.
- The deed of trust (Sept. 1, 1927) named Claud Williams and Mary Williams as trustors and Security Title Company as trustee.
- The deed described the property as “All that property in the County of ____, State of California,” followed by “Lot thirty nine (39) of Tract number Forty-five hundred eleven (4511) as per map recorded in Book 49, pages 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County.”
- The deed left the county blank and did not identify which county recorder’s office held the referenced tract map.
- The superior court entered judgment quieting title in plaintiffs, finding they held fee simple title.
- H. R. Coburn appealed, arguing the deed of trust was void for an insufficient property description, so the trustee’s sale could not convey title.
- Plaintiffs sought to rely on surrounding circumstances (including where the transaction and recordation occurred and the asserted uniqueness of the tract number) to identify the land.

## Issues

1. Whether a deed of trust that omits the county and otherwise fails to identify the recorder’s office for a referenced map contains a sufficiently definite description to be valid on its face.
2. Whether extrinsic evidence may supply a missing essential element of a real property description in a deed of trust supporting record title in a quiet-title action.
3. Whether incorporation by reference to a recorded map cures uncertainty when the instrument does not specify where the map is recorded.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment quieting title in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The court held the deed of trust was void for uncertainty because it did not provide a facially sufficient means to locate the property.
- The court rejected curing the omission by extrinsic evidence, because the writing did not itself furnish the means to make the description definite.
- The court held incorporation by reference did not save the deed because, without identifying the county, the referenced map could not be located from the instrument.
- Because plaintiffs’ title depended on a trustee’s sale under a void deed of trust, the evidence did not support a finding of fee simple ownership.

## Legal Principles

- A deed must contain a description that enables the property to be readily located by reference to the description within the writing and any properly identified referenced documents.
- If an instrument does not furnish the means to render the description sufficiently definite to locate the land, the instrument is void and its defects cannot be supplied by extrinsic evidence.
- Parties may describe property by reference to a map or other instrument, but the deed and the referenced instrument, taken together, must be as certain as if the full description were set out in the deed itself.
- A trustee’s sale based on a deed of trust void for uncertainty in the property description does not convey valid title, and a quiet-title judgment cannot rest on such record title.

## Conclusion

The court held that leaving the county blank rendered the deed of trust’s property description fatally uncertain, and because the missing location could not be supplied by extrinsic evidence or by an unlocatable map reference, the deed was void and the quiet-title judgment based on the resulting trustee’s sale was reversed.


Saterstrom v. Glick Bros. Sash, Door & Mill Co., 118 Cal. App. 379, 5 P.2d 21 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)