Articles Posted in real estate law

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
Published on:

by

Cotenancy provisions are often required by larger retail tenants in shopping centers of all sizes. They require other specified stores in the center to be open and operating, on the assumption that these other stores will draw the desired mix of potential customers. They come in two flavors; opening requirements, meaning that the requirement is fulfilled before the tenant is required to open; and Operating requirements, meaning that the tenant’s obligations continunue only so long as the named tenants remain in business. Parties to a commercial lease may need to consult with a Sacramento real estate attorney to clearly define the cotenancy requirements in their lease, so that they do not face any surprises, as one tenant faced in a recent decision when their cotenancy provision was found to be an unenforceable penalty because the tenant had never really considered what its harm would be if the named store did not open.

Sacramento commercial lease attorney.jpgIn Grand Prospect Partners, LP, v Ross Dress for Less Inc., Ross was negotiating with a shopping center owner Porterville, in Tulare County. Ross wanted a cotenancy provision that required a Mervyn’s to opening and running before Ross was required to open. If Mervyn’s did not open, or ceased operating, Ross would not owe rent, and did not have to open a store. (The terms of the lease are more fully set out below). Two months after the parties signed the lease; Mervyn’s filed bankruptcy, and never opened its store in the Portville center. Eventually Ross notified the landlord that it was going to terminate the lease under the cotenancy provision. This lawsuit ensued, with Grand Prospect, the landlord, claiming that the lease was unconscionable, and the cotenancy rent abatement provision was an unenforceable penalty.

Under California law, an unenforceable penalty lacks a proportional relationship between the forfeiture compelled and the damages or harm that might actually flow from the failure to perform a covenant or satisfy a condition. The test requires a comparison of

Continue reading
Published on:

by

California real estate sellers and buyers are rightly concerned about reassessment of the property on sale. A parcel held for many years is assessed, and taxed, based on the purchase price long ago. Prop 13 provides that, real property generally is taxed based on its value at the time of acquisition, not its current value. A sale today would trigger reassessment and an increase in property tax. A problem can arise with ownership of entities such as LLCs or corporations Generally, the transfer of an ownership interest in an entity such as an LLC or corporation is not a change in ownership of the real property held by that entity. However, if one person or entity acquires more than 50%, it is deemed a change of ownership; if you are facing this problem, you may want to consult a Sacramento real estate attorney. In a recent decision the County assessor claimed that more than 50% changed hands; however, the court, demonstrating the math to determine ownership, showed that the assessor was dead wrong, and at risk of paying over $200,000 in attorney fees.

Sacramento property assessment lawyer.jpgIn Ocean Avenue LLC v. County of Los Angeles (227 Cal App 4th 344), Ocean LLC owned the Fairmont Miramar Hotel in Santa Monica. Ocean entered a contract to sell it, but that contract was terminated. On the same day of the termination they contracted to sell ownership of the LLC to a group of three entities; a Trust, MSD Portfolio, and Hotel Investor LLC. Staff for the County assessor reviewed the ownership interests and determined that no one had more than 50% ownership. Ignoring staff, the Assessor re-assessed the hotel. The owners paid the tax, then filed suit.

California Code provides that there can be reassessment when there is a change of ownership in real property, “[w]hen any corporation, partnership, limited liability company, Massachusetts business trust or similar trust, other legal entity or any person… obtains through multi-tiering, reorganization, or any transfer direct or indirect ownership of more than 50 percent of the total interest in [the limited liability company’s] capital and more than 50 percent of the total interest in [its] profits[.]” (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 18, § 462.180, subd. (d)(1)(B).) The Assessor claimed that Michael Dell (that may be his name on the computer you are using) controlled more than 50% of the capital invested by the new owners.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Title Insurance – Only Insures Against Claims Alleging a Defect, Lien or Encumbrance Against Title – The Preliminary Report Is Not A Contract Guarantying The State of Title

Buyers of real estate in California routinely buy a policy of title insurance. This insurance is triggered when there is a claim or lien against the property which the title company did not initially identify and point out to the buyer in the Preliminary Report. The Preliminary Report is a report prepared by a title company before issuing a title insurance policy, indicating the conditions under which the insurance company will issue title insurance. Buyers often have misunderstandings about the preliminary report and how it should be looked at, and may wish to consult a Sacramento real estate attorney for assistance. Often people incorrectly view the Prelim as a contract guaranteeing that the title is in such a condition. But that is not the case, as was recently made clear in a Federal Court decision following California law in which alota money was at stake.

Sacramento Title insurance attorney.jpgIn Feduniak v. Old Republic National Title Company (2014 WL 6603253), the plaintiffs bought a $13 million dollar home on 17 mile drive in Pebble Beach. They bought title insurance from Old Republic title Company. The title company missed something – namely, an easement in favor of the California Costal Commission. The easement required that at least 86% of the property be maintained as native dune habitat. At the time the property was purchased, it contained a golf course, violating the native dune requirement. Old Republic Title Company missed the easement; it was not listed as an exception to the title policy. The owner filed a claim with Old Republic. The title company wanted to hire an appraiser to determine the diminishment in value of the property due to the easement, but the owners had them negotiate with the Coastal Commission instead, to remove the easement. The negotiations were unsuccessful, other than to tip off the Coastal Commission that the easement was being violated. The Commission went after the owners, and Old Republic defended them. The Commission issued a cease & desist order, requiring them to submit a fix-it plan. They went back & forth on plans, and the commission filed suit for violation of the Cease & Desist order. They eventually agreed on a rehab plan, but the Commission did not dismiss the suit- it went to trial for over $25 million in penalties, exemplary damages, attorney fees and costs. The owners then sued the title company.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

The proper use of an easement is often the subject of disputes in California. An easement is a restricted right to a definable use or activity on someone’s property, and it must be less than the full right of ownership. Real estate attorneys are often consulted when someone interferes with use of an easement; if legal action is pursued, the judge must interpret the language of the grant of easement to determine what the original parties intended. In a recent decision, a developer had an easement over other property for ingress and egress. Being a bonehead, he did much more that use it to access the property, and then lost the development to Bank in foreclosure. The Bank, which then inherited the dispute, had to make a ridiculous argument to the court to avoid a judgment that misuse of the easement subjected it to damages.

sacramento easement scope attorney.jpgIn Schmidt v. Bank of America, N.A., Parks owned two adjacent properties in La Mesa, California. She conveyed the western parcel to Schmidt, reserving to herself an easement for ingress and egress for public road purposes along the eastern 40 feet. She later sold the adjoining property (the dominant tenement), along with the easement over the eastern property. Time goes by, and eventually the owner of the eastern parcel began construction of a condominium project. In doing so, he built features on, under, and around the easement area. It was graded for use as a private roadway, a locked gate was added. He installed sewer pipes, and storm drains under the easement area. The developer went belly up, and defendant Bank of America foreclosed. The Bank ended up owned the condominium property, including the features on and under the easement. The eastern owner, Schmidt, sued for trespass, nuisance, and other relief.

In the lawsuit the Bank argued that the scope of the easement covered the structures and improvements affecting the easement. The Schmidts countered that the grant was for only a right of ingress and egress that allowed the Bank to use only the surface of the easement. The phrase “for public road purposes” did not create a public right of way.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Altered or forged deeds are subject to some specific rules in California. In some cases, where it is altered by a party to the deed, they may be declared void, and of no effect. If it is altered by a third party, it is not entirely void – it is still valid as between the original parties. In a recent decision, The person who should have been an owner of property did not consult a Sacramento real estate attorney, and misunderstood what a deed actually said. When it was improperly altered before recording, the result did not change the effect of the conveyance – she had no interest in the property.

Sacramento altered deed attorney.jpgIn Lin v. Coronado, Lin pooled her $150,000 with $100k provided by River LLC and Elevation LLC to buy a residential property at a trustee’s sale. The property was bought by the LLCs for $250,000. The original deed from the trustee was to “Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation (herein called trustee) does hereby grant and convey, but without covenant or warranty, express or implied to RIVER FOREST FINANCIAL LLC 75%, ELEVATION INVESTMENTS 25% HELEN LIN.” However, the deed that was recorded states “Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation (herein called trustee) does hereby grant and convey, but without covenant or warranty, express or implied to RIVER FOREST FINANCIAL LLC 75%, ELEVATION INVESTMENTS 25%.” Lin was not named in the recorded deed. River LLC and Elevation sold the property to Coronado, the defendant in this appeal.

Lin filed suit against River & Elevation for fraud, and also against Coronado, the buyer, to quiet title. Regarding the quiet title, she claimed that the deed was altered after it was executed, it was void, and thus did not convey title. The buyer claimed that Lin never had an interest in the title in the first place, so they were a bona fide purchaser for value, and the claim failed. The Court agreed with the buyer.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

When a foreclosure sale occurs, the lender often bids at the sale the entire amount due on the loan. If no one bids higher, they obtain the property. But are they entitled to then collect insurance for pre-foreclosure damage? Sometimes insurers obtain their own insurance policy, which covers them for all damage to the property. However, commercial lenders often are insured through their borrower’s policy, which only covers the value of the debt. There is an important difference if the lender forecloses, and parities in this situation may need to consult with a real estate attorney. In a recent case, the lender discovered that making a full credit bid at the foreclosure sale was a mistake, and lost its chance to collect on the policy.

sacramento credit bid attorney.jpg In Najah v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, the plaintiff sold a commercial property taking back a note for $2.5 million secured by a 2nd deed of trust. The first loan was for $2 million. There was a structure on the property, and the terms of the Notes required that the buyer not remove or destroy the building, and to repair any damage that occurred. The Note required the buyer to provide an all risk insurance policy insuring the seller, which the buyer obtained.

The Buyer went into default and the first lender pursued foreclosure. The seller, holder of the second, bought the interest of the first lender for the balance due on the first loan, $1.75 million. The Seller was also assigned the first deed of trust. The seller then foreclosed on its 2nd deed of trust. At the foreclosure sale, the Seller made a full credit bid – that is, it bid the full amount due on the 2nd Note.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

The security first rule is one of the numerous anti-deficiency protects provided to borrowers under California law. “Security first” means that a creditor must first exhaust all real property security through judicial process in the “one form of action” authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 726–that is, a judicial foreclosure. The rule is violated if the lender attempts to obtain a personal judgment against the debtor before first exhausting all the real property in a judicial foreclosure lawsuit. This can be a serious penalty in the case of commercial properties, and lenders and borrowers should consult with a real estate attorney to be sure of their options. If the creditor violates the security first rule, it loses its chance to get a deficiency judgment, which holds the borrower personally liable for the balance of the debt above the value of the property.

If the borrower raises the security first rule as an affirmative defense, there are four ways the case may proceed:

1. The lender may amend the judicial foreclosure to include the omitted security;

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Parties such as corporate directors, partners and managers of LLC’s owe each other a fiduciary duty, which is a duty of loyalty and a duty of care. These are legal duties to act solely in another party’s interests, and not profit from their relationship with their principals unless they have the principals’ express informed consent. Violating this duty can result in liability. But, even if you do not owe someone a fiduciary duty, you can be found liable for aiding and abetting someone else in breaching such a duty, something to be aware of in any any transaction.. Under California Law, liability may be imposed on one who aids and abets the commission of an intentional tort if the person-

(a) knows the other’s conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other to so act, or

(b) gives substantial assistance to the other in accomplishing a tortious result and the person’s own conduct, separately considered, constitutes a breach of duty to the third person.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

When the same debt is secured by liens on both real property and personal property, the lender has options as to how they are allowed to enforce their security interest. They can enforce against the real property under real property law, against personal property under the Commercial Code, or both. There are specifics under both areas of law which must be observed, or the lender may lose their security, and a party in this situation may want to consult with a business and real estate attorney. Otherwise, they may run into the problem faced by a lender recently when they failed to adequately describe the personal property in the deed of trust. The Court of Appeals found that the deed of trust did not successfully describe personal property as additional security, and thus any further recourse for the lender would be contrary to the purpose of the antideficiency laws.

mixed collateral attorney sm.jpgIn Thoryk v. San Diego Gas and Electric Company, the owner of an avocado ranch in San Diego County wanted to subdivide it into two-acre homesites. The owner borrowed $1 and ½ million from Highland for this purpose. There was a wildfire which did extensive damage to the property, and the project stopped. Highland foreclosed and obtained title to the property. The owner believed that San Diego Gas and Electric was at fault and sued for damages. Highland joined the suit, claiming that its deed of trust was secured by more than just the property, and extended to any of the owner’s recovery of damages caused to the property; i.e. it was also secured by personal property. Highland argued that it was entitled to a judicially imposed lien under the terms of its deed of trust and related note.

The owner argued that he was protected by the antideficiency laws, which prohibits collecting money from the owner after a trustee’s sale. However, where there are liens established upon both personal and real property in the subject transaction, a foreclosing lienholder using the power of sale may continue to pursue remedies against the former property owner/borrower. The creditor is not seeking a personal judgment for the unpaid balance of a loan, but instead seeks to enforce additional security secondarily liable for the principal loan.

Continue reading