Articles Posted in real estate law

Published on:

by

A license gives authority to a licensee to perform an act or acts on the property of another pursuant to the express or implied permission of the owner. The licensor generally can revoke a license at any time without excuse or without consideration to the licensee. Also, the license is lost if the licensee conveys their property – the license is personal to the individual and does not attach to the land. However, the license can become irrevocable when a landowner knowingly permits another to repeatedly perform acts on his or her land, and the licensee, in reasonable reliance on the continuation of the license, has expended time and a substantial amount of money on improvements with the licensor’s knowledge. Under such circumstances, it would be inequitable to terminate the license. (Miller & Starr, as cited by Richardson v. Franc) Often in these cases, Sacramento real estate attorneys focus on whether the owner granted permission or the activity was obvious so that the owner was aware, and whether or not the actual expenditures were substantial. In a recent Northern California decision, none of these factors were even close, and an irrevocable license was found.

Sacramento irrevocable license lawyer.jpg In James Scott Richardson v. Greg Franc, the Richardsons had a deeded easement across the defendants’ property in Novato for “access and public utility purposes.” For twenty years, the Richardsons (and the prior owners) maintained landscaping, irrigation, and lighting on both sides of the road within the easement area. They had installed drip irrigation with pumps and separate drip lines for the individual trees and plants. They installed water fixtures for fire control. And they installed electric lights. They regularly maintained the landscaped area, trimming, weeding and replacing plants. They also had a landscaper performing these functions. They and their predecessors had never asked for permission, nor did the owners of the land which the easement crossed (the servient property) expressly grant permission. Six silent years after the defendants bought the servient property, they suddenly demanded that the plaintiffs remove the landscaping and improvements within the easement. They cut the irrigation and electrical lines. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, alleging equitable easement and irrevocable licenses. The trial court found an irrevocable license, and the defendants appealed.

The court first found that there was no equitable easement established. This would have required the plaintiff – easement holder to be without knowledge, or the means of knowledge, of the facts. Here their Grant Deed on its face described the easement for access and public utility purposes. The landscaping and improvements are not required for these purposes. The owner is charged with knowing what their deed says, so they were with knowledge.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

California real property owners with larger parcels can occasionally have recreational users on the land. Invited or otherwise, hikers, bikers, hunters and fisherman may wander on personally property whether the owner is aware of it or not. Generally, they are not required to keep the property safe nor warn of hazards. If the recreational user is injured, the property owner has some protection from liability. But what if the user is injured by the landowner’s activities? A recent California Supreme Court decision has found that the active conduct of the landowner, if conducted negligently, may result in liability to a recreational user who is injured.

Sacramento recreational property liability attorney.jpgIn Klein v. United States, Klein was riding his bicycle on a road in a National Forest. It was a two-lane paved road open to the public. He was hit head-on by a car driven by a U.S Fish and Wildlife volunteer, on his way to watch some birds. Klein was seriously injured, lost the use of his left arm, and was forced to take a medical retirement. His wife also had to take an early retirement to care for him. They sued the United States in Federal Court.

Under the Federal Tort Claims act, the U.S. may be liable when, under state law, an individual would have liability. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit was concerned that there were no California decisions which directly addressed this issue, so they could not determine whether there was liability under state law. The Federal Appellate Court issued an order requesting the California Supreme Court determine how state law would be applied on these facts.

Continue reading
Published on:

by


All owners of real estate in California risk liability for injuries to others on the premises. The owner has possession (or control) of the property, and if it can be established they had knowledge of a dangerous condition, they are at risk. Real estate attorneys advise their clients that to establish liability the injured party must show that the owner had a duty of care to the injured party, there was a breach of the duty of care that was the proximate cause of the injuries, and the injured party suffered damages. But what about injuries that occur off the property? A landowner in LA County was disappointed to learn that they may have liability for an injury that occurred off the premises, to someone who had not been on the defendant’s property.

Sacramento property liability attorney.jpgIn Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC, a vehicle which exited the defendant’s restaurant parking lot collided with and killed a motorcyclist. The biker’s parents brought this suit for damages. The restaurant parking lot faced the Pacific Coast Highway, and there was a divided median. The patron left the parking lot and tried to make a left turn into oncoming traffic. The plaintiffs claim that the owner was negligent in that the design of the driveway created a decreased visibility of the adjacent highway. There were no signs indicating ‘right-turn only.”

The court first reviewed the law on determining whether the owner had a duty to someone off the premises. The California Supreme Court has determined that this requires balancing of a number of considerations; the major ones are

Continue reading
Published on:

by


Real estate contracts contain covenants and warranties that the parties sometimes want to enforce after the sale has been concluded. Whether or not they are still enforceable is determined by whether the covenants were “merged in the deed.” The idea is that, once the Seller grants and Buyer accepts the deed, the deed is conclusive and all bets are off. The general rule is that any covenants in a contract between the parties are merged into the deed. If a covenant is not performed, then the rights of the parties depend on the terms of the deed. If the deed does not discuss the covenants, then whether these covenants survive and remain enforceable after closing depends on the intent of the parties. The starting point for figuring out the party’s intent is the language of the deed. When a provision in a deed is certain and unambiguous it prevails over an inconsistent provision in a contract of purchase pursuant to which the deed was given. Sacramento real estate attorneys commonly see situations where the intent is clear – the contract states whether the conditions survive, or do not. More troubling is the case where the contract is not so clear.

Sacramento deed attorney.jpg
In Rams Gate Winery, LLC v. Joseph G. Roche, Rams Gate bought a Sonoma County winery property from Roche. As part of the agreement, the Roches agreed to provide

“[w]ithin ten days of the Effective Date” “written disclosure” of any “information known to Seller” regarding violations of “building, zoning, fire, health, environmental statutes, ordinances or regulations; [and] any known geological hazards; … soil reports, … geotechnical reports, … and all other facts, events, conditions or agreements which have a material effect on the value of the ownership or use of the Property….”

Continue reading
Published on:

by

In California, most lenders on real estate take back a deed of trust in which they are named the “beneficiary.” If the borrower defaults, the beneficiary may then instruct the trustee to proceed to foreclose. Occasionally there is more than one beneficiary, resulting in multiple cobeneficiaries. They may all have contributed a percentage of the funding, or may have been assigned a fractional interest in the note and deed of trust after-the-fact. If the borrower defaults on their loan, California real estate attorneys will advise their lender clients to instruct the trustee to initiate foreclosure proceedings by execution a declaration of default. But, what happens if the cobeneficiaries do not agree to proceed to foreclose? The law is clear that each cobeneficiary has a right to proceed with the foreclosure; however, trustees are not forced to agree, and are reluctant to do so. Beneficiaries must rely on a statutory agreement ahead of time if they want this protection.

Sacramento cobeneficiary dispute.jpgIn apparently the only California decision to address the issue head on, Perkins v. Chad Development Corp., there were two cobeneficiaries. The borrower had defaulted on loan payments, and had let the property taxes go in to arrears. One cobeneficiary wanted to proceed to a nonjudicial foreclosure, the other did not. The property was foreclosed, and the buyer brought a quiet title action to clear title in his name. A third party intervened, claiming an equitable interest in the property. His argument was that the foreclosure sale was not valid because the Notice of Default and Election to Sell had not been executed by both cobeneficiaries. The court did not agree.

The court first noted that joint beneficiaries have a community of interest in the secured obligation akin to a joint venture or partnership, and any of them should have sufficient agency powers to record the notice of default to protect their mutual interests. As a cobeneficiary, beneficiary Perkins was a tenant in common in the beneficial interest under the note and trust deed. A cotenant has a right to protect the estate from injury or loss without the aid or assistance of other cotenants. As the borrower had defaulted on trust deed and had permitted the taxes to go delinquent, Perkins as a cotenant was entitled to protect the common beneficial interest by foreclosing the security.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

In order for a deed to be effective in California, it must be “delivered” and “accepted.” These terms do not have their normal meanings in this context. Delivery does not mean the physical act of transmitting the deed to the grantee. Delivery refers to the intention of the grantor that the deed be presently operative, with the grantee immediately becoming the legal owner. Delivery can be inferred if the deed is recorded or is in the grantee’s possession. The deed also must be accepted, which again refers to the grantee’s intent. The grantee must have the intention to become the legal owner of the property. Usually, these issues do not come up, except in unusual circumstances in which a party to a deed should consult an experienced real estate attorney. Such an unusual case came up when deeds were prepared for a trust that had not been created. After the grantee’s death, the grantors’ heirs wanted the property back. The grantors’ heirs were disappointed to learn that, nonetheless, the deeds had been delivered and accepted, and the property was not theirs.

Sacramento deed delivery attorney.jpgIn Gloria Luna v. Erica Brownell, the dispute arose regarding a house in Monterey Park. An attorney was involved and had the parties sign too many deeds, confusing everything. Al owned the property and wanted to plan for his passing. He signed a deed granting the property to himself, brother, and two sisters as co-owners. Later (here’s where the attorney got involved) the two sisters each signed two deeds, one granting their interest back to Al as an individual, the other to Al as trustee of a trust (that had not been created). Several weeks later, Al executed the Declaration of Trust. The sister’s deeds to the Trust were recorded, and Al died 11 days later.

The sisters’ heirs filed this lawsuit claiming that the deed to the Trust was void because the trust did not exist when the deeds were signed and delivered to the Lawyer. The defendant argued that the sisters, when they signed the deeds, had the intent to return title to Al, either as an individual or as trustee of the trust.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Co-owners of property often enter agreements that include a right of first refusal. If one of the parties wants to sell their interest, and receives a bona fide offer, they must offer to sell to the co-owner on the same terms. Partition is a legal action which forces the sale of a property when co-owners cannot agree to another way to end the relationship. The right to partition can be waived by contract, either expressly or by implication. Parties entering a co-ownership agreement should consult with a Sacramento real estate attorney in drafting the agreement to ensure it will accomplish their goals, including waiver of the right to partition if that is what they want. In a decision regarding a Lake Tahoe vacation home valued at over $2.8 million, a truculent co-owner tried to argue that the right of first refusal waived the right to partition, but the court said no. If you want to waive all possibility of partition, you should clearly state that in your agreement.

sacramento right of first refusal attorney.jpgIn LEG Investments v. Boxler, the parties were 50% co-owners of a house on the water in Carnelian Bay. LEG was a general partnership, and Eppie Johnson (founder of Eppies restaurants and Eppies Great Race, the world’s oldest triathlon) was the general partner. The co-owners had a Tenant-in-Common Agreement, which included a right of first refusal.

The Right of First Refusal Language

Continue reading
Published on:

by

When co-owners of property cannot agree on what to do with it, a solution is a legal action for partition. In a partition the judge will order the property ‘partitioned’; that is, either divided in-kind between them or sold and the money divided between the owners. Under California law Partition in-kind is favored “since this does not disturb the existing form of inheritance or compel a person to sell his property against his will. Forced sales are strongly disfavored.” However, in modern times, Sacramento real estate attorneys see the bulk of these disputes concerning developed properties with an individual home or commercial building. You can’t split a house down the middle, so the property is ordered sold and the judge splits the cash accordingly. But larger properties are different, and the preference is division in kind. One co-owner who really only wanted a sale so that he could buy out the other owner was disappointed when the court caught on and cut-up the property for division in kind.

Sacramento partition attorney.jpgIn Butte Creek Island Ranch v. William Crim, The parties each owned one half of a waterfowl hunting ranch in Butte County. The property consisted of two separate parcels Parcel A was primarily used for a sleep house, dining building, garage and barn. Parcel B, which is much larger, is where the hunting occurs. Butte Creek (a partnership) wanted to buy Crim. When Crim said no, this Partition action was filed.

The parties stipulated to the appointment of a receiver (CCP section 873.040). The referee concluded that the proper course was division in kind- to divide Parcel A & B into 2 parcels each and then each party would get part of A and part of B. He thought that division by sale would leave the parties less than whole in two respects:

Continue reading
Published on:

by

When California lenders and buyers seek title insurance, they want to be sure that the title to the property that they are receiving, or the security for their loan, is what they expect it to be. In the case of the lender, they want to be sure that they are in first place, so that if they need to foreclose, the property will be unburdened by any senior lien or liability, and they can get their money out of it. A preliminary title report, the precursor to the policy, is an offer to sell an insurance policy, but not like any other kind of offer to make a contract. If I offer to sell you my “used Buick, which has 20,000 miles on it, for $12,000,” and you accept, when you discover that it really has 97,000 miles on it, you have a claim against me for breach of contract and fraud. But Sacramento & Yolo commercial real estate attorneys are often faced with explaining to clients that the preliminary report cannot be relied on in the same way. That was the answer some mortgage investors got from the court, when the preliminary report stated that the title company would get a full release of a notice of abatement action before issuing a policy.

Sacramento title insurance policy attorney.jpgIn Stockton Mortgage Inc. v Tope, the plaintiff Lender loan $315,000 to Tope to buy and rehab a Stockton property. The lender obtained title insurance from Alliance Title Company, underwritten by First American. The preliminary report had the standard language stating”

“[T]his Company … is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a Policy or Policies of Title Insurance … insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an Exception herein or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations of said Policy forms.”

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Last week I discussed a cotenancy provision in a California commercial lease, where the court found that the rent abatement aspect – if the specified cotenant was not operating, the tenant’s rent is reduced or eliminated – was found to be an unenforceable penalty. That court also looked at whether the provision was unconscionable, and thus unenforceable. Unconscionability (codified at Civil 1670.5) has no specific legal definition, but generally means extreme unfairness. Business and real estate attorneys often see a situation where one party gets a really bad deal, but that alone does not make it unenforceable. California courts have developed an analysis requiring two elements, “Procedural,” and “Substantive.” In the decision being addressed here, the court found that Procedural element was not fulfilled so the cotenancy provision was not unconscionable.

Sacramento commercial lease unconscionable attorney.jpgIn Grand Prospect Partners, LP, v Ross Dress for Less Inc., Ross entered a lease in a commercial center in Porterville, CA. The lease required that Mervyn’s be open when the Ross store opened, and Mervyn’s was to remain in operation for the term of the Ross lease. If Mervyn’s was not operating, Ross could cease paying rent, and also terminate the lease. Mervyn’s filed for bankruptcy before opening in this center, so the cotenancy requirement was unfulfilled, and Ross declined paying rent. In the ensuing lawsuit, the Landlord claimed that the cotenancy provision was unconscionable, and thus should not be enforced.

Procedural Unconscionability.

Continue reading