Archive for the ‘Real Property’ Category

Rancho Mirage Country Club v. Hazelbaker – Another Reason Not to Fight Your Homeowners Association (2016-8-16)

There’s an old saying – “You can’t fight city hall.”  In the case of a homeowners association, the saying should be, “You can’t afford to fight a homeowners association.”  Because the deck is stacked against the homeowner. In the recent case of Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Ass’n v. Thomas B. Hazelbaker (Aug. 8, 2016) […]






Janice H. v. 696 North Robertson, LLC – Premises Liability is Never a Clear Question in California (2016-7-21)

The recent decision in Janice H. v. 696 North Robertson, LLC (July 14, 2016) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ addressed the always difficult question of premises liability.  More specifically, When is the operator of real property liable for an injury to a guest in a unisex bathroom?  The court’s answer – a resounding, It depends. The facts […]






Taylor v. NU Digital Marketing, Inc. – Remedy of Unlawful Detainer Notwithstanding Contract for Sale (2016-6-29)

The remedy of unlawful detainer is available in three situations under California law, most commonly when a tenant holds over after termination of the lease, or when the tenant continues to occupy the property after breach of the lease. Less commonly, unlawful detainer is available to an owner “against an employee, agent, or licensee whose […]






Jones v. Wachovia Bank – Limitation on Property Owner’s Ability to Testify Regarding Value (2016-5-12)

The decision in Jones v. Wachovia Bank (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 935 reminds us that all opinion testimony must be supported by reasonable foundation.  The underlying complaint was based on an allegation “the bank breached an agreement to postpone the trustee sale and, by reason of that breach, plaintiffs lost their equity in the property.” The […]






Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Ass’n v. Carson – $100,000 in Attorney’s Fees Awarded to Homeowners Association that Recovered $6,600 in Fines (2016-4-30)

Let me be up front – this author does not particularly care for homeowners’ associations.  In my opinion, they have too much power, which is often wielded with a heavy hand. Now comes the decision in Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Ass’n v. Carson (April 19, 2016) __ Cal.Rptr.3d __, which only reinforces this view.  Here […]






Salazar v. Matejcek – Treble Damages for Removal of Trees Under California Law (2016-4-25)

Civil Code section 3346 authorizes an award of treble damages for “wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood upon the land of another, or removal thereof.”  The defendant in the recent case of Salazar v. Matejcek (Mar. 10, 2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 63 learned that this statute can support very substantial damages. The dispute concerned “a […]






Majd v. Bank of America – Violation of Dual Tracking Statute Supports Claim for Wrongful Foreclosure (2016-4-11)

California law now prohibits the practice of “dual tracking,” whereby a lender simultaneously pursues a default while also engaging in loan modification negotiations with the borrower.  The question concerns the remedy available when there is a violation of the dual tracking law. The court in Kazem Majd v. Bank of America, N.A. (Jan. 14, 2016) […]






Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank – New Opinion Disagrees with 2013 Decision in Glaski v. Bank of America (2016-3-30)

A 2013 decision from the Fifth District Court of Appeal (based in Fresno) has bedeviled the lending community.  In Glaski v. Bank of America (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1079, the court held that the borrower could state a “cognizable claim for wrongful foreclosure under the theory that the entity invoking the power of sale (i.e.,  Bank […]






Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc. – Unconscionability in Loan Modification Supports Claim for Wrongful Foreclosure (2016-2-18)

The recent decision in Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc. (Feb. 11, 2016) __ Cal. App.4th __ continues the litigation fallout from the second depression (referred to in other parts of the country as the Great Recession).  In Orcilla v. Big Sur, the lender completed a nonjudicial foreclosure on the plaintiff’s residence.  The borrower sued to […]






In re Perl – 9th Circuit Changes Rules Relating to Bankruptcy Stay and California Eviction Law (2016-1-20)

The law of evictions – titled as “unlawful detainer” in California – is a technical area. The law has statutory roots as far back as the Forcible Entry Act of 1381, which prohibited the use of self-help to retake possession of real property. That remains an important concept in an action based on the unlawful […]