Land Use, Environmental, and Real Estate Law in California
By Leslie Z Walker
In Ste. Marie v. Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District (2009) 46 Cal.4th 282, the Supreme Court resolved an apparent conflict between Public Resources Code sections 5540 and 5565 in favor of a park district’s ability to hold real property without dedicating it to park or open space purposes.
Continue Reading Land Held by Park District Not Automatically Dedicated
By Glen Hansen
In Venturi & Company LLC v. Pacific Malibu Development Corporation (April 10, 2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1417, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that a trial court erred in granting summary judgment and entirely dismissing a plaintiff’s claim for payment for services rendered to a development company because the plaintiff was not licensed as a real estate broker. Plaintiff may be able to recover some payment since a portion of the services provided by plaintiff were not exclusively those of a real estate broker. But the dispute could have been avoided if plaintiff had properly been licensed as a real estate broker.
Continue Reading If You Want to Act Like a Real Estate Broker, and Want to be Paid Like One, Then You Better be One
By Katherine J. Hart
The most recent CEQA/land use decision comes from the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District and provides important guidance on issues of exhaustion of administrative remedies, CEQA mitigation measures, and general plan interpretation. In California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova and Jaeger Road 530, LLC, filed March…
Katherine J. Hart, associate at Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will be speaking on the following topic:
Mitigation and Conservation Easements: An Overview of When and Why Mitigation is Required and How to Effectively Utilize Conservation Easements to Meet Mitigation Requirements
Location:
…
