Blog

Even in an auto-dependent culture, sidewalks are important infrastructure. From business customers to dog walkers, all sorts of people benefit from well-placed pavement that helps knit a city together. The question of who should pay to maintain sidewalks, however, has become a contentious one in Los Angeles. Who should pay to do that – property owners or the city? In this post, we will update you on the controversy. Ordinance on the obligation to repair Since 1974, Los Angeles has had an ordinance making the city responsible for repairing sidewalks damaged by city trees. The ordinance was passed at a time when the city was flush with federal funds. Those funds have long since dried up. And the city has struggled to keep up with its duty to repair the tree damage. Thousands of linear miles of sidewalks throughout Los Angeles have fallen into disrepair. This isn’t only a matter of appearances, either; cracked and broken-down streets are also dangerous, especially to the disabled. Advocates for the disabled have therefore been particularly concerned with LA’s sagging streetscape. Faced with a lawsuit brought by disabled residents, the city has finally committed to a multi-year maintenance project, pegged to cost $1.4 billion. That agreement, however, was hardly a resolution to the overall sidewalk problem. Last week, the LA City Council approved a plan for a new proposed ordinance that has the working title “fix and release.” Fix and release The wording of the proposed fix-and-release ordinance is still being drafted. But the idea is to have the city fix sidewalks, then hand off the obligation to maintain them to property owners. It’s not a quick fix. The first priority would be sidewalks near government buildings and business or commercial property. Priority would also be given to severely damaged sidewalks and to sidewalks along highly-traveled routes. Residential homeowners would have to bide their time. But if a property owner wants to step in and take care of the repairs without waiting for the city, the city is prepared to offer a rebate of half of the cost of repair, as long as the repair is done within three years after the fix-and-release program begins. Next steps The program hasn’t started yet. A key next step is to draft a new ordinance to repeal the old one that made the city responsible for sidewalks damaged by trees. And of course the budget commitment will have to be clarified. But by the time the new fiscal year rolls around in July, the fix-and-release program is expected to be underway – with important implications for the city’s streetscape.

Even in an auto-dependent culture, sidewalks are important infrastructure. From business customers to dog walkers, all sorts of people benefit from well-placed pavement that helps knit a city together. The question of who should pay to maintain sidewalks, however, has become a contentious one in Los Angeles. Who should pay to do that – property owners or the city? In this post, we will update you on the controversy. Ordinance on the obligation to repair Since 1974, Los Angeles has had an ordinance making the city responsible for repairing sidewalks damaged by city trees. The ordinance was passed at a time when the city was flush with federal funds. Those funds have long since dried up. And the city has struggled to keep up with its duty to repair the tree damage. Thousands of linear miles of sidewalks throughout Los Angeles have fallen into disrepair. This isn’t only a matter of appearances, either; cracked and broken-down streets are also dangerous, especially to the disabled. Advocates for the disabled have therefore been particularly concerned with LA’s sagging streetscape. Faced with a lawsuit brought by disabled residents, the city has finally committed to a multi-year maintenance project, pegged to cost $1.4 billion. That agreement, however, was hardly a resolution to the overall sidewalk problem. Last week, the LA City Council approved a plan for a new proposed ordinance that has the working title “fix and release.” Fix and release The wording of the proposed fix-and-release ordinance is still being drafted. But the idea is to have the city fix sidewalks, then hand off the obligation to maintain them to property owners. It’s not a quick fix. The first priority would be sidewalks near government buildings and business or commercial property. Priority would also be given to severely damaged sidewalks and to sidewalks along highly-traveled routes. Residential homeowners would have to bide their time. But if a property owner wants to step in and take care of the repairs without waiting for the city, the city is prepared to offer a rebate of half of the cost of repair, as long as the repair is done within three years after the fix-and-release program begins. Next steps The program hasn’t started yet. A key next step is to draft a new ordinance to repeal the old one that made the city responsible for sidewalks damaged by trees. And of course the budget commitment will have to be clarified. But by the time the new fiscal year rolls around in July, the fix-and-release program is expected to be underway – with important implications for the city’s streetscape.

A partition action is a legal process used when two or more individuals co-own real estate and can no longer agree on how to manage or divide their shared property. In California, this approach to seeking legal remedy to such a dispute commonly arises when family members who inherit property together, unmarried couples who buy property jointly or business partners who invest in real estate cannot reach an amicable solution to their ownership concerns absent legal action. When one co-owner wants to sell the property but the others do not—or when disputes about use, maintenance or expenses arise—a partition action may be the only way to resolve the conflict. California law recognizes three types of partition actions: Partition by Sale – The most common type, this occurs when the property is put up for sale and its proceeds are split among the co-owners in accordance with their ownership interests. Courts often favor this method, especially when dividing the property physically would be impractical or would diminish its value. Partition in Kind – This method divides the property physically among the co-owners. It is generally used when the property is large enough or uniquely suited to be split without harming its value, such as vacant land or farmland. Partition by Appraisal – This allows one co-owner to buy out the others at a value determined through an appraisal. This option may be agreed upon by the parties to avoid a public sale or prolonged litigation. Any co-owner of a property in California has the legal right to file a partition action. It doesn’t matter if they own a majority or minority interest—every co-owner has the right to seek a division or sale of the property. STEPS IN A PARTITION ACTION A typical partition lawsuit involves the following steps: Filing the complaint in court Notifying all other co-owners (defendants) Appointing a referee, if needed, to manage the process Obtaining a court order to sell or divide the property Completing the sale or division Distributing the proceeds or interests based on each party’s ownership share If one party has paid more toward property expenses like taxes, mortgage payments or repairs, the court may consider that when dividing proceeds. Ultimately, partition actions can be time-consuming and costly, especially if the parties are in sharp disagreement. However, for a co-owner stuck in a deadlock with others, it may be the only way to resolve the situation and benefit fully from the value of their ownership interest.

A partition action is a legal process used when two or more individuals co-own real estate and can no longer agree on how to manage or divide their shared property. In California, this approach to seeking legal remedy to such a dispute commonly arises when family members who inherit property together, unmarried couples who buy property jointly or business partners who invest in real estate cannot reach an amicable solution to their ownership concerns absent legal action. When one co-owner wants to sell the property but the others do not—or when disputes about use, maintenance or expenses arise—a partition action may be the only way to resolve the conflict. California law recognizes three types of partition actions: Partition by Sale – The most common type, this occurs when the property is put up for sale and its proceeds are split among the co-owners in accordance with their ownership interests. Courts often favor this method, especially when dividing the property physically would be impractical or would diminish its value. Partition in Kind – This method divides the property physically among the co-owners. It is generally used when the property is large enough or uniquely suited to be split without harming its value, such as vacant land or farmland. Partition by Appraisal – This allows one co-owner to buy out the others at a value determined through an appraisal. This option may be agreed upon by the parties to avoid a public sale or prolonged litigation. Any co-owner of a property in California has the legal right to file a partition action. It doesn’t matter if they own a majority or minority interest—every co-owner has the right to seek a division or sale of the property. STEPS IN A PARTITION ACTION A typical partition lawsuit involves the following steps: Filing the complaint in court Notifying all other co-owners (defendants) Appointing a referee, if needed, to manage the process Obtaining a court order to sell or divide the property Completing the sale or division Distributing the proceeds or interests based on each party’s ownership share If one party has paid more toward property expenses like taxes, mortgage payments or repairs, the court may consider that when dividing proceeds. Ultimately, partition actions can be time-consuming and costly, especially if the parties are in sharp disagreement. However, for a co-owner stuck in a deadlock with others, it may be the only way to resolve the situation and benefit fully from the value of their ownership interest.

Adverse possession traces its roots back to ancient legal systems where a medieval farmer tills the soil, plants crops and builds a modest cottage on a piece of land. Over time, the farmer’s descendants continue to work the land, generation after generation. Eventually, the land becomes synonymous with their identity. It’s not just a plot; it’s their legacy. Fast-forward to modern times, and the concept remains relevant. A legal doctrine that allows a person to claim land ownership under certain conditions, adverse possession allows someone who occupies another’s land openly, notoriously, and continuously to eventually claim legal ownership. In California, as in many other jurisdictions, the rules for adverse possession require the claimant to meet specific criteria before they can gain legal title to the property. Most people acquire property by purchasing it or inheriting it. However, some people aren’t in a position to acquire property that way. They might instead decide to lay claim to a vacant piece of land or even a house that’s sitting unoccupied. If someone occupying or using a piece of real estate does so long enough without the owner fighting back, the owner could potentially lose the property to the person living there without their permission. Adverse possession is the legal process by which a squatter or non-owner assumes legal ownership of a piece of property that previously belonged to someone else. How does adverse possession work in California? FIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION In California, the trespasser must successfully meet five conditions for adverse possession: Continuous possession: The trespasser must stake their claim and occupy the land without interruption for at least five years. However, that time frame increases to 20 years if the owner has a medical disability. The trespasser must physically use the property, whether performing improvements, living on it or cultivating it. Actual, open, and notorious possession: Rather than secretly occupying the land, the trespasser must be conspicuous, visible, unmistakable or impossible to ignore. It should be overt enough for the true owner to justifiably be concerned that someone occupies their property. Exclusive possession: The possession must be exclusive, meaning the claimant cannot share possession with strangers. Hostile claim: This doesn’t mean aggression or violence; hostility simply means the trespasser occupies the land without the valid owner’s permission. Pay property taxes: Rather than squatting, the occupier pays property taxes on the land. THE CLAIM OF RIGHT The “claim of right” essentially eliminates the need for the adverse possessor to show any specific intent regarding the property’s ownership. Instead, it focuses on the nature of the possession itself, which must be adverse to the true owner’s interests. If the occupier treats the land as their own for five years, under the conditions required by law, they may be able to perfect their title to the land through adverse possession, effectively converting their claim of right into actual ownership. THE PERSON CLAIMING THE PROPERTY MUST LIVE THERE OPENLY FOR YEARS For a squatter or non-owner occupant to establish an adverse possession claim to a property, they will need to openly take possession of the property and start using it. Only after five years of occupation is a claim of adverse possession possible. In fact, the person occupying the land has to not only live there but also pay taxes on the property. Once that occupying individual has met the obligation to stay at the property and pay taxes on it for five years, they can potentially go to court to seek ownership of the property. However, if the owner of record has a medical disability, that time frame increases to a full twenty years. FIGHTING ADVERSE POSSESSION Property owners can protect themselves against adverse possession claims through frequent inspections and the timely eviction of any occupants there without permission. Learning more about real estate laws in California can help you protect your investment in your property.

Adverse possession traces its roots back to ancient legal systems where a medieval farmer tills the soil, plants crops and builds a modest cottage on a piece of land. Over time, the farmer’s descendants continue to work the land, generation after generation. Eventually, the land becomes synonymous with their identity. It’s not just a plot; it’s their legacy. Fast-forward to modern times, and the concept remains relevant. A legal doctrine that allows a person to claim land ownership under certain conditions, adverse possession allows someone who occupies another’s land openly, notoriously, and continuously to eventually claim legal ownership. In California, as in many other jurisdictions, the rules for adverse possession require the claimant to meet specific criteria before they can gain legal title to the property. Most people acquire property by purchasing it or inheriting it. However, some people aren’t in a position to acquire property that way. They might instead decide to lay claim to a vacant piece of land or even a house that’s sitting unoccupied. If someone occupying or using a piece of real estate does so long enough without the owner fighting back, the owner could potentially lose the property to the person living there without their permission. Adverse possession is the legal process by which a squatter or non-owner assumes legal ownership of a piece of property that previously belonged to someone else. How does adverse possession work in California? FIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION In California, the trespasser must successfully meet five conditions for adverse possession: Continuous possession: The trespasser must stake their claim and occupy the land without interruption for at least five years. However, that time frame increases to 20 years if the owner has a medical disability. The trespasser must physically use the property, whether performing improvements, living on it or cultivating it. Actual, open, and notorious possession: Rather than secretly occupying the land, the trespasser must be conspicuous, visible, unmistakable or impossible to ignore. It should be overt enough for the true owner to justifiably be concerned that someone occupies their property. Exclusive possession: The possession must be exclusive, meaning the claimant cannot share possession with strangers. Hostile claim: This doesn’t mean aggression or violence; hostility simply means the trespasser occupies the land without the valid owner’s permission. Pay property taxes: Rather than squatting, the occupier pays property taxes on the land. THE CLAIM OF RIGHT The “claim of right” essentially eliminates the need for the adverse possessor to show any specific intent regarding the property’s ownership. Instead, it focuses on the nature of the possession itself, which must be adverse to the true owner’s interests. If the occupier treats the land as their own for five years, under the conditions required by law, they may be able to perfect their title to the land through adverse possession, effectively converting their claim of right into actual ownership. THE PERSON CLAIMING THE PROPERTY MUST LIVE THERE OPENLY FOR YEARS For a squatter or non-owner occupant to establish an adverse possession claim to a property, they will need to openly take possession of the property and start using it. Only after five years of occupation is a claim of adverse possession possible. In fact, the person occupying the land has to not only live there but also pay taxes on the property. Once that occupying individual has met the obligation to stay at the property and pay taxes on it for five years, they can potentially go to court to seek ownership of the property. However, if the owner of record has a medical disability, that time frame increases to a full twenty years. FIGHTING ADVERSE POSSESSION Property owners can protect themselves against adverse possession claims through frequent inspections and the timely eviction of any occupants there without permission. Learning more about real estate laws in California can help you protect your investment in your property.

The behavior of a neighbor can directly influence someone’s use of a property. For example, if a neighbor pollutes the soil or causes damage to a tree near a property line, those actions could negatively impact the resale value of adjacent properties. There are laws in California that allow a property owner to take legal action when someone else damages the value of their property. In some cases, such scenarios could justify civil litigation. Private nuisances are grounds for a lawsuit filed against a neighboring property owner. Public nuisances are also potentially harmful to property values and could lead to prosecution. What are the differences between public and private nuisances? PRIVATE NUISANCES AFFECT FEWER PEOPLE The scope of impact is the main factor separating public and private nuisances. A private nuisance might involve someone engaging in rude or offensive behavior that impacts other people. A private nuisance is essentially the unreasonable or unlawful use of a property that interferes with a neighbor’s rights. Actions that affect people’s health or their ability to use their own property as they see fit, like keeping a dangerous and aggressive dog unchained in the yard, could also constitute a private nuisance. Actions that are offensive to the senses, including making unpleasant odors or being visibly nude on private property, could also constitute a private nuisance. A reasonable person would generally need to agree that the behavior is offensive or inappropriate. Public nuisances tend to affect multiple neighbors or the entire neighborhood. The impact on the multiple parties affected does not have to be exactly the same for conduct to constitute a public nuisance. Operating a drug house is a public nuisance, as is engaging and prostitution out of a residential property. Even loud parties that require police intervention late at night could be a form of public nuisance. State prosecutors can bring charges against those who become public nuisances. Prosecution isn’t possible for private nuisance allegations in most cases, but litigation can be an option. Homeowners can file a lawsuit against an adjacent property owner whose actions affect their quiet enjoyment of their property or its potential resale value. Ultimately, seeking legal guidance and learning more about the rules that govern real estate disputes between neighbors, including nuisance claims, may benefit those trying to navigate a difficult situation involving a neighbor.

The behavior of a neighbor can directly influence someone’s use of a property. For example, if a neighbor pollutes the soil or causes damage to a tree near a property line, those actions could negatively impact the resale value of adjacent properties. There are laws in California that allow a property owner to take legal action when someone else damages the value of their property. In some cases, such scenarios could justify civil litigation. Private nuisances are grounds for a lawsuit filed against a neighboring property owner. Public nuisances are also potentially harmful to property values and could lead to prosecution. What are the differences between public and private nuisances? PRIVATE NUISANCES AFFECT FEWER PEOPLE The scope of impact is the main factor separating public and private nuisances. A private nuisance might involve someone engaging in rude or offensive behavior that impacts other people. A private nuisance is essentially the unreasonable or unlawful use of a property that interferes with a neighbor’s rights. Actions that affect people’s health or their ability to use their own property as they see fit, like keeping a dangerous and aggressive dog unchained in the yard, could also constitute a private nuisance. Actions that are offensive to the senses, including making unpleasant odors or being visibly nude on private property, could also constitute a private nuisance. A reasonable person would generally need to agree that the behavior is offensive or inappropriate. Public nuisances tend to affect multiple neighbors or the entire neighborhood. The impact on the multiple parties affected does not have to be exactly the same for conduct to constitute a public nuisance. Operating a drug house is a public nuisance, as is engaging and prostitution out of a residential property. Even loud parties that require police intervention late at night could be a form of public nuisance. State prosecutors can bring charges against those who become public nuisances. Prosecution isn’t possible for private nuisance allegations in most cases, but litigation can be an option. Homeowners can file a lawsuit against an adjacent property owner whose actions affect their quiet enjoyment of their property or its potential resale value. Ultimately, seeking legal guidance and learning more about the rules that govern real estate disputes between neighbors, including nuisance claims, may benefit those trying to navigate a difficult situation involving a neighbor.

Real property can be the biggest investment someone ever makes. Partially as a result of this reality, people tend to feel very strongly about protecting their property rights. Sometimes, disagreements related to real property ownership will end up in civil court. People cannot always resolve a dispute via negotiation that could have an impact on their finances or ownership rights, so they ask a civil court judge to rule on the matter. Every real estate dispute is inherently unique, as the conditions of the property and the circumstances of the owners are unique. However, certain types of real estate litigation are far more common than others. The following are some of the most common reasons that people go to court over a real estate matter. THERE ARE ISSUES WITH BOUNDARIES OR PROPERTY USE Sometimes, neighbors may disagree about where the boundary line between two parcels actually falls. The actual placement of the boundary can impact the use and value of the land. Someone overstepping a boundary might eventually lead to claims of adverse possession if the owner does not challenge their behavior in court. Other times, people may go to court because a neighbor’s use of their property has affected their enjoyment of their property or the value of their land. THERE ARE UNDISCLOSED PROPERTY DEFECTS Issues that people discover with a new home after taking possession can influence not only their enjoyment of the property but often also its actual value on the open market. Buyers who discover significant defects after taking possession of a property may end up taking the seller to court to seek reimbursement for the cost of repairing those defects or the diminished value of the property because those defects exist THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT Construction defect claims are lawsuits brought by property owners against businesses that they hired to construct, remodel or repair a property that they own. Such lawsuits can lead to a court order to correct the issue with the property or compensation for the owner. On the other hand, sometimes construction firms or the businesses that supply them with materials take a property owner to court over nonpayment. Lawsuits seeking liens against real property to compel someone into payment are also relatively common in Massachusetts. Ultimately, recognizing when a conflict related to real property might justify going to civil court could help homeowners and businesses better protect their interests.

Real property can be the biggest investment someone ever makes. Partially as a result of this reality, people tend to feel very strongly about protecting their property rights. Sometimes, disagreements related to real property ownership will end up in civil court. People cannot always resolve a dispute via negotiation that could have an impact on their finances or ownership rights, so they ask a civil court judge to rule on the matter. Every real estate dispute is inherently unique, as the conditions of the property and the circumstances of the owners are unique. However, certain types of real estate litigation are far more common than others. The following are some of the most common reasons that people go to court over a real estate matter. THERE ARE ISSUES WITH BOUNDARIES OR PROPERTY USE Sometimes, neighbors may disagree about where the boundary line between two parcels actually falls. The actual placement of the boundary can impact the use and value of the land. Someone overstepping a boundary might eventually lead to claims of adverse possession if the owner does not challenge their behavior in court. Other times, people may go to court because a neighbor’s use of their property has affected their enjoyment of their property or the value of their land. THERE ARE UNDISCLOSED PROPERTY DEFECTS Issues that people discover with a new home after taking possession can influence not only their enjoyment of the property but often also its actual value on the open market. Buyers who discover significant defects after taking possession of a property may end up taking the seller to court to seek reimbursement for the cost of repairing those defects or the diminished value of the property because those defects exist THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT Construction defect claims are lawsuits brought by property owners against businesses that they hired to construct, remodel or repair a property that they own. Such lawsuits can lead to a court order to correct the issue with the property or compensation for the owner. On the other hand, sometimes construction firms or the businesses that supply them with materials take a property owner to court over nonpayment. Lawsuits seeking liens against real property to compel someone into payment are also relatively common in Massachusetts. Ultimately, recognizing when a conflict related to real property might justify going to civil court could help homeowners and businesses better protect their interests.

This issue is not a novel one. Tenants fail to pay rent all the time. Unfortunately, since 2020, the issue has grown, and tenants found themselves benefiting from various legal protections. Although the idea behind the protections, to help keep people in their homes and business sites during the worst of the pandemic, was noble, the reality was not always as altruistic. Some tenants took advantage of these offerings to avoid paying their rent even when they had the financial capacity to meet their contractual obligation. WHAT ARE THE PROTECTIONS? One example was the LA County Eviction Moratorium, which began on March 4, 2020. Lawmakers designed the protections to help keep renters in their homes when it was difficult to pay rent during the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic. CAN LANDLORDS MOVE FORWARD WITH LEGAL REMEDIES? The LA County Eviction Moratorium protections ended on March 31, 2023. As of April 1, 2023, landlords could move forward with the expectation tenants make full rent payments for those due on or after April 1. Landlords can now consider eviction options for those who fail to make these payments. Landlords are also able to consider suing tenants for rent owed. This is allowed even if the tenant paid 25% of the rent due from September 2020 through September 2021. It is important to note that some local jurisdictions may have permanent tenant protections. Any landlord looking to move forward with eviction action may be wise to seek legal counsel to ensure their actions are within the bounds of the law.

This issue is not a novel one. Tenants fail to pay rent all the time. Unfortunately, since 2020, the issue has grown, and tenants found themselves benefiting from various legal protections. Although the idea behind the protections, to help keep people in their homes and business sites during the worst of the pandemic, was noble, the reality was not always as altruistic. Some tenants took advantage of these offerings to avoid paying their rent even when they had the financial capacity to meet their contractual obligation. WHAT ARE THE PROTECTIONS? One example was the LA County Eviction Moratorium, which began on March 4, 2020. Lawmakers designed the protections to help keep renters in their homes when it was difficult to pay rent during the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic. CAN LANDLORDS MOVE FORWARD WITH LEGAL REMEDIES? The LA County Eviction Moratorium protections ended on March 31, 2023. As of April 1, 2023, landlords could move forward with the expectation tenants make full rent payments for those due on or after April 1. Landlords can now consider eviction options for those who fail to make these payments. Landlords are also able to consider suing tenants for rent owed. This is allowed even if the tenant paid 25% of the rent due from September 2020 through September 2021. It is important to note that some local jurisdictions may have permanent tenant protections. Any landlord looking to move forward with eviction action may be wise to seek legal counsel to ensure their actions are within the bounds of the law.