Articles

Subscribe to Articles via RSS

By Glen C. Hansen

Civil Code section 895 et seq. (i.e., the “Fix-it Law”) establishes procedures and requirements with respect to construction defect cases involving homes and homeowners. Section 910 sets out “prelitigation procedures” to be followed by plaintiffs before a suit can be filed, procedures that can be summarized as “notice and opportunity to repair.” Section 912 in turn sets out certain requirements for builders with respect to documentation and information to be provided to homeowners.
Continue Reading Homeowners have the Burden of Proving Builder Failed to Comply with “Fix-it Law” Before Filing Construction Defects Action

By William W. Abbott

Well, Mark Twain got that right. Beginning with the voter approval in 1978 of Proposition 13, California voters and public agencies have been at odds with each other over local government revenue strategies. The dilemma for local government being of course, that residents demand high level of services but expect someone else to pay for it. Walking the fine line between service delivery and voter enacted limitations on revenue streams, local agencies continuously explore and implement new strategies to capture new revenue streams, and over time, the trend has been to link charges to services provided. In the most recent levy case, the City of San Diego attempted to forge new territory by charging a processing fee for the purpose of offsetting costs associated with sending tax bills. In other words, a processing fee imposed on top of, and for the purpose of, collecting a general tax collected from property owners.
Continue Reading “What is the Difference between a Taxidermist and a Tax Collector? The Taxidermist Takes Only Your Skin.”

By Glen C. Hansen

In County of Sacramento v. Sandison (May 29, 2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 646, the Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District, held that the limitation on attorneys’ fees awards in Government Code section 25845, subdivision (c), does not apply to awards granted under Civil Code section 1717, and Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032, 1033.5, based on an attorneys’ fees provision in a written contract.
Continue Reading Limits on Attorneys’ Fees Awards Under Government Code Section 25845 are … Limited.

William W. Abbott, partner of Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will be speaking on the following topic on Monday September 14, 2009 at 11:45 a.m.

“Preservation of Local Government Approvals”

Location:

  • The Firehouse Restaurant – Golden Eagle Room
  • 112 Second Street
  • Old Sacramento, California
  • Telephone: (916) 442-4772

Date/Time:    

  • Monday, September 14, 2009 at 11:45 a.m.

…

By William W. Abbott

Some people look at a water glass and see it half full, others see it half empty. It all turns on one’s perspective. Differing perspectives can also apply to water charges during periods in which the utility user elects to not take service: are those charges to be treated as standby charges, subject to voter approval by Proposition 218 (Cal. Constitution Art. XIII D), or are they fees for service, exempt from voter approval?
Continue Reading Proposition 218, Water Charges and Voter Approval

By Cori M. Badgley

As mining companies continue attempting to lay claim to gold in the state known as “the last frontier,” environmental groups continue in their efforts stop them. At issue in Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (2009) 129 S. Ct. 2458 was the proposed disposal of “slurry” from the Kensington Gold Mine into Lower Slate Lake. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) issued a 404 permit for the “fill” of the lake, which was challenged by the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (“SEACC”), among others, on the grounds that the new source performance standards found in Section 306 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) (“CWA”) prohibited the discharge of the slurry.
Continue Reading Alaska’s Gold Rush Continues: USACE 404 Permit Upheld by the Supreme Court

By Glen Hansen

In Lin v. City of Pleasanton, 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1170, the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held that, barring extreme circumstances,Elections Code section 9238, subdivision (b)(2), does not require a referendum petition to include documents that were neither attached to the challenged ordinance, nor incorporated by reference.
Continue Reading A Referendum Petition does not have to Contain Documents that are only Referred to in a Challenged Ordinance

By Katherine J. Hart

The City of Los Angeles (“City”) adopted a Specific Plan containing a provision which imposes affordable housing requirements on residential and mixed use projects of more than 10 dwelling units (“DUs”) per lot. At issue in this case was whether the Costa-Hawkins Act preempts the City’s affordable housing requirements. The superior court held that the Costa-Hawkins Act does preempt the affordable housing requirements in the City’s Plan.
Continue Reading Another Developer Win on Affordable Housing Regs: A Local Agency can be Preempted from Implementing Affordable Housing Requirements as a Condition of a Project Approval

By Katherine J. Hart

The Riverwatch, et al. v. County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, et al. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438 case involves the battle over attorney fees awarded to Petitioners by the trial court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, and proves that the courts are continuing the trend in awarding fees even for partially prevailing parties.
Continue Reading Attorney’s Fees in CEQA Cases: Hardly a Gamble Anymore