By Glen C. Hansen

In Linthicum v. Butterfield (April 2, 2009) 2009 Cal.App. LEXIS 473 (as modified on April 9, 2009, 2009 Cal.App.LEXIS 496), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed a trial court’s creation of an equitable easement. In that case, Plaintiffs bought a parcel of land in a mountainous area near Los Padres National Forest in Santa Barbara County. A 60-year old roadway existed over that parcel. Defendant owners of neighboring parcels used that roadway as the only access to their land. Plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent Defendants from using the roadway. Defendants cross-complained to quiet title to an easement for the roadway. The primary issue in that case was whether the trial court abused its discretion in creating an “equitable easement” over the roadway in favor of the Defendants.
Continue Reading Through Equity, A Court Can Create a Roadway Easement

By Glen Hansen

California’s eminent domain law permits acquisition of property only for a “proposed project” that is intended for public use. In City of Stockton v. Marina Towers, LLC (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 93, the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District held that the City of Stockton (“City”) was unable to satisfy its burden of proving that it had the right to condemn property on its waterfront because the City’s resolution of necessity did not contain a sufficient project description.
Continue Reading Don’t “Condemn First, Decide What to do With the Property Later”

By Glen Hansen

When governmental agencies force owners of real property to remediate contaminated soil and groundwater, the owners will invariably attempt to recover the remediation costs from those persons or entities responsible for the contamination. That may include former owners of the property or former operators of facilities on the property. If the contamination has been present in the soil and groundwater for many years, a lawsuit to recover remediation costs from the responsible parties may be barred by the 3-year statute of limitations. Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (b), applies to actions for “trespass upon or injury to real property.” However, if the contamination is still migrating through the soil or groundwater, the plaintiff may be able to avoid the bar of the 3-year statute of limitations by alleging a continuing nuisance or trespass.
Continue Reading CLAIMS TO RECOVER REMEDIATION COSTS MAY BE BARRED AFTER 10 YEARS

By Glen Hansen

Real estate buyers and sellers often draft very simple contracts to express their mutual intentions. Courts will enforce such contracts if the terms are certain enough for the court to know what to enforce. But what if important terms and conditions are missing in the written contract? What standard or customary conditions will a court read into such agreements? The Supreme Court addressed that issue in the recent case of Patel v. Liebermensch (2008) 45 Cal.4th 344, where the parties’ signed purchase contract was silent as to the length of the escrow period.
Continue Reading What Standard Escrow Terms Will A Court Imply In A Real Estate Purchase Contract?