Real Estate

Subscribe to Real Estate via RSS

An arbitration provision that is contained in CC&Rs is enforceable against a plaintiff condominium association who sued the developer for construction defects, even though the association did not exist as a separate entity when the CC&Rs was drafted and recorded by the developer.
Continue Reading Arbitration Provision In A CC&Rs Applies To Condominium Association Construction Defects Claims Against Developer.

By Glen C. Hansen

In Quail Lakes Owners Assn. v. Kozina (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1132, the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District affirmed a trial court’s decision to grant a verified petition by a homeowners’ association for an order under Civil Code section 1356 to modify the association’s governing laws to reduce a supermajority voting restriction.Continue Reading Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Granting Verified Petition To Remove Supermajority Voting Restriction In CC&Rs.

By Glen C. Hansen

In RealPro, Inc. v. Smith Residual Company, LLC(2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1215, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a trial court judgment sustaining a seller’s and their agent’s demurrer to a cooperating broker’s complaint to recover a real estate commission, where the cooperating broker presented a written offer of a buyer that was “ready, willing, and able to purchase the Property … on all material terms” contained in the listing, including an all cash purchase at the full listing price of $17 million, but where the seller did not accept the offer and a sale was never completed.Continue Reading What Is The Meaning Of The Word “Or”: A Real Estate Broker Commission Is Not Owed Even Though An All-Cash Offer Meets The Full Price In The Listing Agreement

The California Supreme Court will decide whether, in response to a construction defect action brought by a condominium homeowners association, the developer can compel binding arbitration of the litigation pursuant to an arbitration provision in the CC&R’s.
Continue Reading Supreme Court To Decide If A Developer Can Compel Arbitration Of A Condominium Homeowners Association’s Construction Defect Claim Under The CC&R’s

In Tesoro del Valle Master Homeowners Assn. v. Griffin (October 3, 2011, B222531) ___ Cal.App.___, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed a judgment following a jury verdict that found that a homeowners’ association (“HOA”) complied with the California Solar Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 714), even though the HOA denied the application of property owners to install solar panels on a slope adjacent to their residence in the development.
Continue Reading Homeowners’ Association Complies With Solar Rights Act When It Reasonably Denies The Installation Of Solar Panels At Residence In the Development

Please join William W. Abbott and Steven Rudolph on August 18, 2011 from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM for an in depth look at the art of crafting development agreements in their UC Davis Extension course, Vested Rights, Vesting Maps and Development Agreements.
Continue Reading Vested Rights Class at UC Davis Extension August 18, 2011

A prescriptive easement claimant does not have to show that claimant paid the taxes on a separately assessed railway easement that ran along the same land as the prescriptive easement because the two easements were not coextensive in use.
Continue Reading “Payment of Taxes May Be Required For A Prescriptive Easement, But Only If Defendant Can Prove The Easement Has Been Separately Assessed”

By Cori Badgley and Emilio Camacho

In Monterey/Santa Cruz County Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Cypress Marina Heights LP (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1500, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, held that deeds acquiring property from a redevelopment agency required the purchaser/developer to pay prevailing wages to the construction workers. In addition, the appellate court also held that plaintiffs were entitled to $73,167.50 in attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.Continue Reading Bad Deeds Make Bad Law

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