Close

California Real Estate Lawyers Blog

Updated:

An Attorney Cannot Agree to a California Arbitration on Behalf of the Client, But the Client Can Game the System If He Does (and the client loses the Arbitration)

In a recent case a husband and wife sold property to plaintiffs, who sued for misrepresentation. (There was no indication in the court’s opinion whether they had used a C.A.R. contract and initialed the arbitration provision.) Both parties attorneys and the judge signed a stipulation and order for arbitration and…

Updated:

A Real Estate Sales Contract becomes an Option Enforceable Due To Performance

A developer-buyer entered an agreement with a landowner to buy 10 acres after buyer pursued county approval for subdivision. The contract contained a contingency that the buyer was not obligated to do anything and could cancel the contract at any time. The buyer pursued the subdivision, spending money for engineering…

Updated:

Avoiding Usury- if a Lender Takes A Small Interest in the Real Estate Project, He Is A Joint Venturer / Partner and Can Avoid the Usury Laws Against High Interest Loans

Usury is the charging of interest for a loan in excess of the legal maximum. In California, the amount is set out in the state Constitution. Exemptions to the law are also described in the Constitution, as well as court decisions. One the of court-established exceptions is for a joint…

Updated:

Loan Guarantor’s Own Real Estate Attached On Default- Guaranties Are Risky

Chang guaranteed three construction loans, totaling 4 million dollars, for another party. In the guarantees Chang waived the right to require the Bank to proceed first against the borrower, or foreclose against the borrower’s property. The other party defaulted, and the bank went after Chang first, filing a lawsuit and…

Updated:

California Escrow Co. in trouble -When escrow has closed and the seller then changes instructions for distribution of the money, escrow cannot always carry them out.

California Escrow Co. in trouble -When escrow has closed and the seller then changes instructions for distribution of the money, escrow cannot always carry them out. A million dollar property in Northridge was under contract for sale. The buyer’s side was handled by Peregrino, the buyer’s “attorney in fact.” The…

Updated:

The foreclosing lender’s promise was not a binding contract, but was binding anyway- the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.

A lender was foreclosing on a house in Southern California, and the owner was arranging financing to avoid foreclosure. They were down to the wire, and the owner’s broker was in contact with the foreclosure officer. The foreclosure sale had been postponed to August 30, but they needed more time.…

Updated:

What to do when you are sued and its partly someone else’s fault- how to get liability apportioned in California lawsuits.

Someone bought a property in Berkeley, then discovered that there was an easement across it that no one told her about. She sued her broker and the seller’s broker for failing to disclose the easement. The buyer’s broker brought a cross-complaint against the seller’s broker for “equitable indemnity.” Under California…

Updated:

Foreclosure of California Commercial & Investment Properties- Five Steps To Determine if Your Loan is Non-Recourse

California anti-deficiency laws provide in some cases that on foreclosure the buyer/borrower has no personal liability; only the property is at risk. The law primarily protects residential properties; but in some cases buyers of commercial property can be protected. What follows are five steps to determine how the anti-deficiency laws…

Updated:

Sue 1st, Negotiate later; When a California Landlord Risks Being Sued After Settling a Dispute With Their Tenant

In a recent case in San Francisco, the landlord served a three-day notice, but never filed an unlawful detainer. The parties entered a settlement agreement, and the Landlord was sued by the Tenant for fraud and other claims relating to the pre-settlement conduct. Seems that the landlord was attempting to…

Updated:

Court says No to Benefit of the Bargain Damages for Mutual Mistake

Under California law, “benefit of the bargain” damages for breach of a real estate contract is the difference between the actual value of what the plaintiff got and what he expected to receive. If Joe breaches his contract to buy a house from Sam for $100,000, and Sam later sells…

Contact Us