The recent decision in Janice H. v. 696 North Robertson, LLC (July 14, 2016) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ addressed the always difficult question of premises liability. More specifically, When is the operator of real property liable for an injury to a guest in a unisex bathroom? The court’s answer – a resounding, It depends. The facts …
Author Archives: admin
Taylor v. NU Digital Marketing, Inc. – Remedy of Unlawful Detainer Notwithstanding Contract for Sale
The remedy of unlawful detainer is available in three situations under California law, most commonly when a tenant holds over after termination of the lease, or when the tenant continues to occupy the property after breach of the lease. Less commonly, unlawful detainer is available to an owner “against an employee, agent, or licensee whose …
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and the Second Bank of the United States
Today, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) is cited for its interpretation of Congress’ powers under the Constitution. But the case actually involved the Second Bank of the United States, a contentious period in our history. The first Bank of the United States was established in 1791 by Congress. It had a 20-year charter. Hamilton was a …
Continue reading “McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and the Second Bank of the United States”
The Missing Records of the High Commisson
The High Commission was a court that existed in England for more than a century, engendering substantial political dispute. Originally intended for ecclesiatical disputes, the spread of its jurisdiction caused major friction. Yet its records have all disappeared, save for contemporaneous writings. Here is some facinating history. “Historians have seen in the High Commission’s existence …
Continue reading “The Missing Records of the High Commisson”
Greenspan v. LADT LLC – Once and for All, a Trust Is Not an Entity
Sometimes a court provides a clear statement of the law. Greenspan v. LADT LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486 is one such opinion, providing a definite and authoritative answer to the issue of whether a trust is an entity – it is not. From the opinion. “Courts often speak of the alter ego doctrine as if …
Continue reading “Greenspan v. LADT LLC – Once and for All, a Trust Is Not an Entity”
Jones v. Wachovia Bank – Limitation on Property Owner’s Ability to Testify Regarding Value
The decision in Jones v. Wachovia Bank (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 935 reminds us that all opinion testimony must be supported by reasonable foundation. The underlying complaint was based on an allegation “the bank breached an agreement to postpone the trustee sale and, by reason of that breach, plaintiffs lost their equity in the property.” The …
Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Ass’n v. Carson – $100,000 in Attorney’s Fees Awarded to Homeowners Association that Recovered $6,600 in Fines
Let me be up front – this author does not particularly care for homeowners’ associations. In my opinion, they have too much power, which is often wielded with a heavy hand. Now comes the decision in Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Ass’n v. Carson (April 19, 2016) __ Cal.Rptr.3d __, which only reinforces this view. Here …
Salazar v. Matejcek – Treble Damages for Removal of Trees Under California Law
Civil Code section 3346 authorizes an award of treble damages for “wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood upon the land of another, or removal thereof.” The defendant in the recent case of Salazar v. Matejcek (Mar. 10, 2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 63 learned that this statute can support very substantial damages. The dispute concerned “a …
Continue reading “Salazar v. Matejcek – Treble Damages for Removal of Trees Under California Law”
Ferguson v. Yaspan – Statute of Limitations Not Applicable to Defense Based on Rescission
In a lawsuit based on a contract, one party can seek relief based on the theory of rescission. Rescission can be considered an equitable judicial remedy. Under California Civil Code section 1689, rescission supports “extinction” of the obligation. Rescission can be pled as a basis for affirmative relief, or it can asserted as defense to …
Majd v. Bank of America – Violation of Dual Tracking Statute Supports Claim for Wrongful Foreclosure
California law now prohibits the practice of “dual tracking,” whereby a lender simultaneously pursues a default while also engaging in loan modification negotiations with the borrower. The question concerns the remedy available when there is a violation of the dual tracking law. The court in Kazem Majd v. Bank of America, N.A. (Jan. 14, 2016) …