February 2011

By Glen C. Hansen

In 2008, the California Legislature enacted Civil Code section 2923.5. That statute requires, before a notice of default may be filed, that a lender contact the borrower in person or by telephone to “assess” the borrower’s financial situation and to “explore” options for the borrower to prevent foreclosure.  In Mabry v. Superior Court (June 2, 2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 208, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District addressed a case where plaintiff borrowers brought an action that requested a restraining order to prevent a foreclosure sale based on the lender’s alleged failure to comply with section 2923.5. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ request on the grounds of no private right of enforcement and federal preemption. The Court of Appeal reversed, and disagreeing with the trial court on both grounds.Continue Reading Borrowers May Sue to Postpone a Foreclosure if the Lender Does Not First Discuss Options with the Borrower to Prevent Foreclosure

By Glen Hansen

In Hashalom v. City of Santa Monica (No. B212733, November 22, 2010) 2010 Cal.App. LEXIS 1990, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that an apartment complex did not fall within a statutory exemption from historic preservation provided by Government Code section 37361, subdivision (c), because the property had always been a commercial enterprise, both when the current owner purchased it and when the same owner later sought the exemption.Continue Reading To be Exempt from Landmark Designation, a Property Must be Related to the Owner’s Religious Mission Before Application for the Exemption

Lawsuit challenging a county’s ordinance regulating medical marijuana dispensaries was not brought within the 90 day statute of limitations. Plaintiff’s attempts to cast the lawsuit as an as-applied challenge to bring it within the statute of limitations were unsuccessful. A wolf in sheep’s clothing is still a wolf, no matter how you dress it up.
Continue Reading A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing is Still a Wolf: Court Denies Medical Marijuana Case on Statute of Limitations Grounds