Blog

To most eyes, the property seems like a lavish, eight-acre estate in the peaceful hills of central Los Angeles. However, those who know better understand that the pristine convent is at the center of a prolonged real estate dispute involving the most unlikely opponents: the Sisters of the Most Holy and Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary and pop diva Katy Perry. The dispute began over a year ago and shows no evidence of ending soon. Two sisters bought the property for their community in the 1970’s and claim it is theirs to sell. However, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles says that the rule of the religious order to which the sisters belong relinquishes ownership of all the sisters’ assets to the Church. Because of this, the archdiocese asserts the right to sell the property. The archdiocese accepted an offer from pop star Katy Perry for $14.5 million. Before the deal was settled, the nuns sold the property to a restaurateur for $15.5 million. A county judge ruled that the nuns were wrong to have sold the estate without consulting the archdiocese. However, a superior court ruling overturned that decision saying that the Los Angeles County judge overstepped her discretion by denying the nuns a fair opportunity to gather information. Another hearing is scheduled in the near future to determine the status of the litigants before the case continues. While not every real estate dispute involves nuns and archbishops, many can be just as complex and important to each side. Having an experienced attorney to guide one through the process is invaluable. Disputes involving property can potentially take many months to resolve, and a dedicated lawyer will stand by a client to protect his or her interests. Source: laist.com, “Katy Perry Still Isn’t Able To Buy The Los Feliz Convent She So Dearly Wants”, Matt Tinoco, Oct. 1, 2016

To most eyes, the property seems like a lavish, eight-acre estate in the peaceful hills of central Los Angeles. However, those who know better understand that the pristine convent is at the center of a prolonged real estate dispute involving the most unlikely opponents: the Sisters of the Most Holy and Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary and pop diva Katy Perry. The dispute began over a year ago and shows no evidence of ending soon. Two sisters bought the property for their community in the 1970’s and claim it is theirs to sell. However, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles says that the rule of the religious order to which the sisters belong relinquishes ownership of all the sisters’ assets to the Church. Because of this, the archdiocese asserts the right to sell the property. The archdiocese accepted an offer from pop star Katy Perry for $14.5 million. Before the deal was settled, the nuns sold the property to a restaurateur for $15.5 million. A county judge ruled that the nuns were wrong to have sold the estate without consulting the archdiocese. However, a superior court ruling overturned that decision saying that the Los Angeles County judge overstepped her discretion by denying the nuns a fair opportunity to gather information. Another hearing is scheduled in the near future to determine the status of the litigants before the case continues. While not every real estate dispute involves nuns and archbishops, many can be just as complex and important to each side. Having an experienced attorney to guide one through the process is invaluable. Disputes involving property can potentially take many months to resolve, and a dedicated lawyer will stand by a client to protect his or her interests. Source: laist.com, “Katy Perry Still Isn’t Able To Buy The Los Feliz Convent She So Dearly Wants”, Matt Tinoco, Oct. 1, 2016

With the advancements in educational technology, it is common for colleges and universities to offer courses online rather than having students live on campus or commute to classes. Because of this, many institutions save money by minimizing their physical presence. This is the situation in which California’s Claremont School of Theology finds itself. However, the sale of institutional property is not always easy, and the school is currently embroiled in a real estate dispute with its affiliate, the Claremont Consortium. The Consortium sold the property to the seminary in 1957, but the deed included a provision that gave the Consortium first options for repurchasing the land. If the seminary ever decided to sell the property, it would be sold back to the Consortium at fair market value or using a formula that calculated taxes and depreciation. However, when the Consortium made its offer of $12.7 million for land the seminary valued at over $25 million, the seminary objected. According to the Consortium, its final offer of $14 million, which was also rejected by the seminary, was $10 million above the stipulation in the deed. While the seminary believes the deed’s provision for calculating the land value expired in 1987, the Consortium says it was renewed in 2001. Both sides claim they are acting in good faith, but negotiations broke down quickly. The seminary recently filed suit against the Consortium. The solution to their real estate dispute seems to hinge on the validity of a single clause in the original deed. If a California court finds that the clause is still valid, the seminary may have no choice but to accept the offer from the Consortium. However, even if the dispute is resolved, it is possible that the relationship between the two institutions may be irreparably damaged. Source: dailybulletin.com, “ Seminary sues Claremont Colleges over disputed land deal “, Lisa Marquez, Sept. 18, 2016

With the advancements in educational technology, it is common for colleges and universities to offer courses online rather than having students live on campus or commute to classes. Because of this, many institutions save money by minimizing their physical presence. This is the situation in which California’s Claremont School of Theology finds itself. However, the sale of institutional property is not always easy, and the school is currently embroiled in a real estate dispute with its affiliate, the Claremont Consortium. The Consortium sold the property to the seminary in 1957, but the deed included a provision that gave the Consortium first options for repurchasing the land. If the seminary ever decided to sell the property, it would be sold back to the Consortium at fair market value or using a formula that calculated taxes and depreciation. However, when the Consortium made its offer of $12.7 million for land the seminary valued at over $25 million, the seminary objected. According to the Consortium, its final offer of $14 million, which was also rejected by the seminary, was $10 million above the stipulation in the deed. While the seminary believes the deed’s provision for calculating the land value expired in 1987, the Consortium says it was renewed in 2001. Both sides claim they are acting in good faith, but negotiations broke down quickly. The seminary recently filed suit against the Consortium. The solution to their real estate dispute seems to hinge on the validity of a single clause in the original deed. If a California court finds that the clause is still valid, the seminary may have no choice but to accept the offer from the Consortium. However, even if the dispute is resolved, it is possible that the relationship between the two institutions may be irreparably damaged. Source: dailybulletin.com, “ Seminary sues Claremont Colleges over disputed land deal “, Lisa Marquez, Sept. 18, 2016

Many people in Los Angeles dream of living in a gated community where privacy and security suggest an almost idyllic quality of life. However, purchasing a home in a private community — such as a condominium, in a retirement neighborhood or a vacation timeshare — often includes membership in a Home Owners’ Association or similar organization. Reading the fine print before signing on may save potential homeowners the headache of a real estate dispute. Belonging to an HOA means agreeing to abide by its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions even if they seem disagreeable. The terms of the CC&R are meant to protect the property values in the community as well as maintain a certain quality of life. So while the CC&R may prevent one’s neighbor from putting up a gaudy display of holiday lights or owning a persistently barking dog, it may also prevent one from displaying a flag of his or her favorite football team or installing an adorable mailbox. HOA membership is not voluntary in most common interest communities. A person who purchases a home in an HOA-controlled community is legally bound to the association’s rules. In fact, refusing to abide by the terms of the CC&R, or even breaking the rules out of ignorance, may result in hefty fines or other penalties. The CC&R in one’s community may even give the HOA the right to foreclose on one’s house for unpaid fines or dues. Carefully reading the CC&R and having a thorough understanding of one’s rights and responsibilities is vital before purchasing a home in a common interest community. Knowing what is in the contract will make it easier to recognize when one’s rights are being violated by an HOA. People in Los Angeles who feel their HOA is not keeping its end of the covenant or is overstepping its authority may consult an attorney for advice on how to resolve this real estate dispute. Source: The Huffington Post, “ When Homeowners’ Association Living Goes Haywire: How To Prevent The Common Problems Of Living Under An HOA or COA “, Jack Hanson, June 29, 2016

Many people in Los Angeles dream of living in a gated community where privacy and security suggest an almost idyllic quality of life. However, purchasing a home in a private community — such as a condominium, in a retirement neighborhood or a vacation timeshare — often includes membership in a Home Owners’ Association or similar organization. Reading the fine print before signing on may save potential homeowners the headache of a real estate dispute. Belonging to an HOA means agreeing to abide by its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions even if they seem disagreeable. The terms of the CC&R are meant to protect the property values in the community as well as maintain a certain quality of life. So while the CC&R may prevent one’s neighbor from putting up a gaudy display of holiday lights or owning a persistently barking dog, it may also prevent one from displaying a flag of his or her favorite football team or installing an adorable mailbox. HOA membership is not voluntary in most common interest communities. A person who purchases a home in an HOA-controlled community is legally bound to the association’s rules. In fact, refusing to abide by the terms of the CC&R, or even breaking the rules out of ignorance, may result in hefty fines or other penalties. The CC&R in one’s community may even give the HOA the right to foreclose on one’s house for unpaid fines or dues. Carefully reading the CC&R and having a thorough understanding of one’s rights and responsibilities is vital before purchasing a home in a common interest community. Knowing what is in the contract will make it easier to recognize when one’s rights are being violated by an HOA. People in Los Angeles who feel their HOA is not keeping its end of the covenant or is overstepping its authority may consult an attorney for advice on how to resolve this real estate dispute. Source: The Huffington Post, “ When Homeowners’ Association Living Goes Haywire: How To Prevent The Common Problems Of Living Under An HOA or COA “, Jack Hanson, June 29, 2016

To every property owner, whether it is an apartment building, a warehouse or commercial office park, getting a return on one’s investment is an essential part of doing business. This means that monthly rent must be collected from tenants. Invariably tenants may not be able honor their contractual obligation. In these instances, a landlord may have to commence eviction proceedings. Although it may appear to be a simple procedure, the eviction process in Southern California is fraught with pitfalls for the unwary. Essentially, landlords must strictly adhere to rules governing eviction notices and the initiation of unlawful detainer lawsuits. For instance, California law requires that residential landlords serve a proper notice to pay rent (or to quit) and that such a notice must be conspicuously posted or provided directly to the tenant before an unlawful detainer suit may be commenced. Additionally, landlords are prohibited from taking “self-help” actions to expedite evictions, such as changing locks, shutting off services or otherwise harassing tenants who have not paid rent. These missteps can serve as legal grounds for denying an unlawful detainer and the corresponding writ of possession that enables the sheriff to physically remove the tenant. In fact, there are companies that represent tenants in the midst of eviction proceedings that look to exploit rule violations so that their clients can buy additional time to avoid evictions. To that end, landlords must be vigilant when it comes to evictions. The guidance of an experienced real estate attorney can help to ensure that you adhere to California law.

To every property owner, whether it is an apartment building, a warehouse or commercial office park, getting a return on one’s investment is an essential part of doing business. This means that monthly rent must be collected from tenants. Invariably tenants may not be able honor their contractual obligation. In these instances, a landlord may have to commence eviction proceedings. Although it may appear to be a simple procedure, the eviction process in Southern California is fraught with pitfalls for the unwary. Essentially, landlords must strictly adhere to rules governing eviction notices and the initiation of unlawful detainer lawsuits. For instance, California law requires that residential landlords serve a proper notice to pay rent (or to quit) and that such a notice must be conspicuously posted or provided directly to the tenant before an unlawful detainer suit may be commenced. Additionally, landlords are prohibited from taking “self-help” actions to expedite evictions, such as changing locks, shutting off services or otherwise harassing tenants who have not paid rent. These missteps can serve as legal grounds for denying an unlawful detainer and the corresponding writ of possession that enables the sheriff to physically remove the tenant. In fact, there are companies that represent tenants in the midst of eviction proceedings that look to exploit rule violations so that their clients can buy additional time to avoid evictions. To that end, landlords must be vigilant when it comes to evictions. The guidance of an experienced real estate attorney can help to ensure that you adhere to California law.

In the first part of this post, we discussed a key appellate ruling on the scope of California’s Right to Repair Act, also referred to as SB 800. In Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC, the California Court of Appeals held that SB 800 is not an exclusive remedy for homeowners when seeking compensation for construction defects. In this post, we will discuss some of the implications of this decision. We will also consider the question of how SB 800 affects subrogation claims when insurers take immediate action to repair defects. Implications for homeowners The Liberty Mutual ruling is a welcome one for homeowners who may face defect issues. In situations where there has been actual property damage, the ruling makes clear that homeowners have options. One option is to use the alternative remedies allowed under SB 800. This means using a pre-litigation procedure in which the builder is given notice of the alleged defects and given a chance to repair them before any formal litigation is filed. Another option is to assert a common law claim against the builder for damages from the defects. That type of action is based on principles of tort law, not on SB 800. Even if the losses suffered by the homeowner involve economic losses but not property damage, homeowners can still pursue common law claims – as long as they utilize the pre-litigation procedure in SB 800 first. In short, California’s Right to Repair Act puts significant burdens on builders. These burdens make getting the right insurance in place, and complying with its requirements, very important. Subrogation claims by insurers But insurance companies also have their own challenges under SB 800. In that context, let’s take note of another important appellate ruling in recent years, KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. Superior Court (Cal. App. 2013). In KB Home, a property manager for the insured found a water leak and informed the owner. The owner quickly informed the homeowners insurer, which promptly stepped in to six problem. This included repair of the damage done to drywall and carpeting by the leak. The homeowners insurer then tried to recover from the builder through a subrogation action. But the court found that the insurer could not do this because it had failed to notify the builder of the defect, as required by SB 800. The court’s ruling raises many questions about what an insurer has to do in order to retain its subrogation rights. To know how this may affect your particular situation, it makes sense to get counsel from a knowledge real estate attorney.

In the first part of this post, we discussed a key appellate ruling on the scope of California’s Right to Repair Act, also referred to as SB 800. In Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC, the California Court of Appeals held that SB 800 is not an exclusive remedy for homeowners when seeking compensation for construction defects. In this post, we will discuss some of the implications of this decision. We will also consider the question of how SB 800 affects subrogation claims when insurers take immediate action to repair defects. Implications for homeowners The Liberty Mutual ruling is a welcome one for homeowners who may face defect issues. In situations where there has been actual property damage, the ruling makes clear that homeowners have options. One option is to use the alternative remedies allowed under SB 800. This means using a pre-litigation procedure in which the builder is given notice of the alleged defects and given a chance to repair them before any formal litigation is filed. Another option is to assert a common law claim against the builder for damages from the defects. That type of action is based on principles of tort law, not on SB 800. Even if the losses suffered by the homeowner involve economic losses but not property damage, homeowners can still pursue common law claims – as long as they utilize the pre-litigation procedure in SB 800 first. In short, California’s Right to Repair Act puts significant burdens on builders. These burdens make getting the right insurance in place, and complying with its requirements, very important. Subrogation claims by insurers But insurance companies also have their own challenges under SB 800. In that context, let’s take note of another important appellate ruling in recent years, KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. Superior Court (Cal. App. 2013). In KB Home, a property manager for the insured found a water leak and informed the owner. The owner quickly informed the homeowners insurer, which promptly stepped in to six problem. This included repair of the damage done to drywall and carpeting by the leak. The homeowners insurer then tried to recover from the builder through a subrogation action. But the court found that the insurer could not do this because it had failed to notify the builder of the defect, as required by SB 800. The court’s ruling raises many questions about what an insurer has to do in order to retain its subrogation rights. To know how this may affect your particular situation, it makes sense to get counsel from a knowledge real estate attorney.

Residential construction defect disputes in California can be costly, complicated and confusing. Many of the complications involve the Right to Repair Act, also known as SB 800, which the Legislature passed in 2002. It took effect in 2003. In this two-part post, we will discuss two court decisions that have interpreted key aspects of SB 800. One case involves the subrogation rights of insurance companies on homeowners’ insurance claims. The other case involves the question of whether SB 800 is the exclusive remedy for homeowners for construction defects. Let’s start with the question of which defects SB 800 covers and whether it is the exclusive remedy. The case we’d like to inform you about is Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC, decided by the California Court of Appeals in 2013. (219 Cal. App. 4th 98) The Liberty Mutual case concerned a dispute about water damage that resulted when a pipe in a sprinkling system burst. The homeowner had to move out for several months (staying in a hotel) while the builder fixed the damage. The insurance company for the homeowner paid for the hotel. The insurer also covered other expenses related to the homeowner’s relocation. Then the insurer sought to get those expenses back by making a subrogation claim against the home builder. The home builder contended that the claim was too late because SB 800 sets forth a four-year limit on construction defect claims for plumbing system defects. The insurer contended, however, that SB 800 is not the exclusive remedy for construction defects. Through a subrogation action on behalf of the homeowner, the insurer sought to bring common law claims to which the four-year statute of limitations for plumbing defects under SB 800 would not apply. The California Court of Appeals agreed with the insurer. The court said SB 800 did not impose limits on claims when there is actual property damage. In part two of this post, we will discuss the practical implications of this decision. We will also take note of another important appellate case, KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc, v. Superior Court. That case concerns that status of subrogation claims when an insurer takes action to repair without informing the builder first.

Residential construction defect disputes in California can be costly, complicated and confusing. Many of the complications involve the Right to Repair Act, also known as SB 800, which the Legislature passed in 2002. It took effect in 2003. In this two-part post, we will discuss two court decisions that have interpreted key aspects of SB 800. One case involves the subrogation rights of insurance companies on homeowners’ insurance claims. The other case involves the question of whether SB 800 is the exclusive remedy for homeowners for construction defects. Let’s start with the question of which defects SB 800 covers and whether it is the exclusive remedy. The case we’d like to inform you about is Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC, decided by the California Court of Appeals in 2013. (219 Cal. App. 4th 98) The Liberty Mutual case concerned a dispute about water damage that resulted when a pipe in a sprinkling system burst. The homeowner had to move out for several months (staying in a hotel) while the builder fixed the damage. The insurance company for the homeowner paid for the hotel. The insurer also covered other expenses related to the homeowner’s relocation. Then the insurer sought to get those expenses back by making a subrogation claim against the home builder. The home builder contended that the claim was too late because SB 800 sets forth a four-year limit on construction defect claims for plumbing system defects. The insurer contended, however, that SB 800 is not the exclusive remedy for construction defects. Through a subrogation action on behalf of the homeowner, the insurer sought to bring common law claims to which the four-year statute of limitations for plumbing defects under SB 800 would not apply. The California Court of Appeals agreed with the insurer. The court said SB 800 did not impose limits on claims when there is actual property damage. In part two of this post, we will discuss the practical implications of this decision. We will also take note of another important appellate case, KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc, v. Superior Court. That case concerns that status of subrogation claims when an insurer takes action to repair without informing the builder first.