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

Consent Unreasonably Withheld Amounts to Breach of Purchase and Sale Agreement

By Cori Badgley

In Peak-Las Postias Partners v. Bollag (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 101, the court reminded the defendant, Michael Bollag, that the term “consent” in a contract does not give the party unbridled freedom to refuse consent. Instead, the implied requirement of good faith and fair dealing requires that the refusal of consent be reasonable and not merely based on “personal taste, convenience or sensibility.”…
Continue Reading Consent Unreasonably Withheld Amounts to Breach of Purchase and Sale Agreement

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