Articles Posted in real estate law

Published on:

by

People buy real estate in California through nominal or “straw” buyers for many reasons. Sometimes to hide assets, or to launder money. Maybe it’s for legitimate reasons. Nonetheless, California real estate attorneys usually encounter these situations where the agreement between the parties is oral, and there is no documentation. But a recent decision out of Malibu concerned a written agreement between the parties. That was not enough, and the plaintiff sought to rescind the contract. In a rescission of a real estate contract the party who was harmed is required to offer to return everything of value they received under the agreement. A party seeking rescission wants to undo the transaction in its entirety, restoring both parties to the status quo ante. If successful they are entitled to restitution, i.e., to recovery of the consideration that he or she gave and any other compensation necessary to make him or her whole. A claim for damages is not inconsistent with rescission – the aggrieved party shall be awarded complete relief, including restitution of benefits, if any, conferred by him as a result of the transaction and any consequential damages to which he is entitled. In this decision, the plaintiff was not entitled to rescission, but still received damages.

sacramento-real-estate-rescission-attorneyIn Li Guan v. Yongmei Hu, Hu was aromatically involved with Chen. Chen got his buddy, plaintiff Guan, to loan $2.55 million to Hu so that she could buy a house in Malibu. Hu was entitled to receive a percentage of the property’s fair market value. Specifically, Hu would “get 20%” if the house was “sold from January 1, 2012,” and her percentage would increase by 20 percent each year the house was not sold until January 1, 2016. Thereafter, Hu would receive “100%” of the house “as a gift from Mr. Guan.”

In July 2012, Chen emailed Hu telling her that “ ‘it is over! Don’t you re[a]lize it with normal sense?! S[ell] the house as instructed by [Guan] so that you could stil[l] be benefited from the deal.’ ”

Continue reading
Published on:

by

When a loan is secured by real property in California, a deed of trust is recorded, acting as a lien on the property. This reduces the equity in the property. If the owner defaults on the loan, the beneficiary (lender) may then conduct a trustee’s sale. But what if the beneficiary does not exist? A scam to hide equity from creditors would be to record a fictitious deed of trust so that a judgment would not attach to the property. If the creditor discovers the scam, they could take legal action to have the deed of trust determined to be void. However, in a recent decision, the owner of the property recorded a false deed of trust shortly after acquiring the property. The creditors did not discover the fraud until years later, after the statute of limitations for Fraudulent Transfer had expired. The scam worked.

Sacramento-fraudulent-transfer-lawyerIn PGA West Residential Association Inc. v. Hulven International Inc., defendant Mork bought a condo in La Quinta for cash. It was valued between $5 & $6 hundred thousand dollars. He then recorded a deed of trust against the property naming Hulven Inc. as the beneficiary. There was no such corporation. The deed of trust purported to secure a Note for $450,000, but Mork never made any payments.

Nine months after it was named as the beneficiary on the deed of trust, Hulven was incorporated in Montana. Just over two years later, Hulven was involuntarily dissolved. At all times, Mork was Hulven’s sole officer, director, and shareholder.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

A settlement agreement resulting in entry of a judgment results in a ‘stipulated’ or ‘consent’ judgment, which is not appealable. However, settlement agreements often include provisions for future enforcement – such as penalties, fines, and injunctive relief. But once a judgment is entered the trial court loses jurisdiction to consider the matter further. One recent decision involved a settlement that misfired on all procedural cylinders – the trial court had no jurisdiction, and the consent judgment (and the trial court’s order after it) could not be appealed because consent judgments are not appealable. I discuss the details of what went wrong, and suggest some possible solutions.

Sacramento-settlement-attorneyIn Joseph Howeth v. Tina Coffelt, the parties were neighbors in adjoining beachfront houses in Oceanside. They shared a common driveway on their property line which provided the only vehicle access to their two properties. They had reciprocal easements providing equal rights. Nonetheless, they could not get along, and argued over parking and access. Eventually this suit was filed by one to enjoin the other from parking. At the mandatory settlement conference they entered a settlement agreement (full language at the end of this post) agreeing to a specified parking regime. They also provided an enforcement procedure. For violation of the agreement there was a $500 fine, enforceable in contempt proceeding. Lastly, the settlement provided that it would be entered as a stipulated judgment.

Of course the problems did not end, and 6 months later one party filed a motion for “entry of interim money judgment.” The trial court denied the motion because it did not have jurisdiction – there had been a final judgment. The party was required to file a new breach of contract action to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. The appellate court then said the trial court ruling was not appealable.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

In California real estate sales, a typical claim by disgruntled buyers is that the seller failed to disclose some problem with the property that the seller was aware of. The buyer’s cry is that, if the facts had been disclosed, they would have not bought the property, or would have paid less for it. Claims for fraud, intentional or negligent representation, and breach of contract arise. Sometimes it is clear that the seller knew about the problems. Often, however, there is no direct evidence of such knowledge, and Sacramento real estate attorneys are faced with the challenge of creating an inference that the seller must have known, or should have known about the issue. Complications arise when the defects are such that they are only obvious to an engineer – the buyer hopes to impute the specialist knowledge to the owner. In a recent decision from a sale in Healdsburg, the buyers were disappointed when the court ruled that the seller’s experts did not act as agents of the seller and thus their knowledge was not imputed to the seller, and besides, that they should have discovered the problem was not enough.

failure-to-disclose-lawyerIn RSB Vinyards LLC v. Orsi, the defendants hired an architect to design a remodel of a home and applied for a commercial use permit, which was issued for use as a winery and tasting room. Once the use permit issued, the defendants submitted the architect’s plans to the County of Sonoma, which approved the plans. Defendants, none of whom is a construction professional or possesses such skills, relied on their architect and county officials to ensure the plans conformed to applicable building codes, and they had no reason to believe the plans were non-conforming. The construction work was performed by a licensed contractor, in consultation with a structural engineering firm.

failure-to-disclose-attorneyThe defendants decided they did not want to be in the winery business and listed the property. The marketing materials stated that the property had a “vineyard-vested winery permit” and an “active tasting room” and attached a table describing the various permits issued for the property.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Adverse possession is a way of acquiring title to real property through continuous possession or use for a specified period of time. One of the elements required to prove adverse possession is that the possession or use must be “hostile to the owner’s title.” This does not mean that there must be a dispute between the parties, but that the claimant’s possession is without recognition of any rights of the true owner. It also requires the use be adverse, not with the owner’s possession. A key problem is whether the owner of the property knew or should have known of the use. In a recent decision which concerned a deeded easement the supposedly adverse use had not changed through the succession of owners, and had not interfered with the owner’s use of the property. The court found that the use was not legally “hostile” to allow the adverse claim. This case is unusual because the adverse possessor had fenced out the other party, which is nearly always sufficient to establish an element of the claim.

Adverse-possession-hostility-attorney In Vieira Enterprises, Inc. v. John McCoy, the parties were owners of adjacent commercial properties. Vieira operated a mobile home park. The common boundary between the parcels was the centerline of Rosedale Avenue, and each owner had a 20 foot easement over the neighbor’s half of the road. However, at some time a 140-foot-long section of Rosedale Avenue had been fenced in by wire fences to the west of the private road, as well as by a wire gate across the road at the mobile home park’s northern boundary. Thus McCoy would appear to have been fenced out of his 20’ width of road plus the 20’ easement on the remainder of the road.

The problem arose when McCoy notified his neighbors that he was ready to begin a construction projection that would involve removal of the apparent boundary fences and the gate and his regular use of his right of way on Vieira’s property. The City of Capitola issued McCoy a zoning permit that stated conditions for his new building, including that “Rosedale Avenue shall be open to vehicular access for the proposed project and Cabrillo Estates Mobile Home Park at all times.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Co-owners of real estate do not always have the same goals, and when they cannot agree, they may need the court’s help. Such is the case in a Partition action; in its original form, it literally meant dividing the land up into parts, and assigning one part to each individual co-owner. Partitioning the land is still the preferred method under California law, but in most cases real estate attorneys argue that it is impractical, would not result in a fair split, and the property should be sold and the money split. When the property is primarily a building or house, it is usually sold. Either owner is allowed to buy the property, essentially making a credit bid of their own equity in the property, plus additional cash which buys out the other owners. There is a third way to partition- by appraisal, but in an odd recent decision the trial court incorrectly called for appraisal. The court of appeals said this was wrong, and explained the options in an action for Partition.

Sacramento-partition-appraisal-attorneyIn Gayle Cummings v. Jennifer Dessel, the parties agreed to buy a property together east of Arcata, CA. Cummings put $80,000 down, they obtained seller financing, and the others were to make monthly payments and rehab the dilapidated residence. The defendants hit hard times and stopped paying the mortgage and working on the property. Plaintiff filed this action. The trial court ordered partition of the property by appraisal – each owner could bid to buy the other owner’s interest, with the minimum bid set by appraisal.

The court of appeals focused on the statutory language, as partition is governed by the California Code of Civil Procedure. Once the judge determines that a partition is called for, it “shall make an interlocutory judgment that determines the interests of the parties in the property and orders the partition of the property and, unless it is to be later determined, the manner of partition.” (§ 872.720, subd. (a))

Continue reading
Published on:

by

I had previously discussed the case of OC Interiors, where the court determined that a void judgment in the chain of title to real property nullifies all subsequent transfers, including a transfer to a bona fide purchaser. That is a frightening prospect for buyers, and a reason to take a close look at the preliminary title report, and consult a real estate attorney if they are not comfortable with what they find. A default judgment may, in some cases, easily be found to be void. In a more recent decision, some other defendants tried to avoid this result by arguing that the void default judgment had the effect of granting quiet title relief, and thus the subsequent transaction was valid. They were disappointed to find otherwise – the action to cancel and instrument did not have the same impact as an action to quiet title.

Sacramento-real-estate-instrument-cancellation-attorneyIn Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Alan Pyle et al. Saluto owned property in Rancho Mirage and obtained a loan. She defaulted and began a firestorm of recording documents to screw up the chain of title to presumably prevent foreclosure and eviction. The long list of recorded documents is set out at the end of this post. (I wonder if she paid someone to muddy things up like this- I have done a quiet title in a similar situation, and the hired perpetrator faced Federal criminal charges). A trustee’s sale was held. Saluto then filed an action against the lender to cancel the trustee’s deed and deed of trust and obtained a default judgment. Eventually, the lender got the judgment set aside, the court finding that she had falsified the proofs of service, and that the judgment was void.

The issues on appeal for the court were: (1) whether defendants were entitled to bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer status, and (2) the impact of the void default judgment in the chain of title.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Slander of title is a false statement related to real property that causes monetary loss. The goal is the protection of the transferability of title. The claim is based on whether the publisher of false information could reasonable expect the false publication to influence the conduct of a third party, such as a lender or buyer. It may be an unsupported claim of an interest in real property that throws “doubt” on its ownership. However, Sacramento real estate attorneys point out to their clients that the false publication may be privileged, which is a statutory defense to a claim for slander of title.

Sacramento-slander-of-title-lawyerIn Raymond A. Schep v. Capital One, N.A., Schlep borrowed $910,000, secured by a deed of trust on his Beverly Hills home. He missed his mortgage payments and a Notice of Default was recorded. Before the Notice of Trustee’s Sale was recorded, someone recorded a “Substitution of Trustee and Full Reconveyance” (the ‘Wild Deed’). The court’s opinion does not specify who did this, but implies that it was the borrower. Subsequently the Notice of Sale recorded, and the property was foreclosed through a trustee’s sale. The Borrower filed this lawsuit claiming slander of title due to the recording of the Notice of Default, Notice of Sale, and Trustee’s Deed. Apparently his argument was that the Trustee had constructive notice of the Wild Deed and the implied competing claim on title.

Sacramento-privilege-slander-of-title-lawyerThe court found that the plaintiff was wrong, because all the documents underlying his claim were privileged. Civil Code section 2924(d) (1) (set out below) provides that the notices required for a trustee’s sale procedure are privileged communications under section 47 (also set out below).

Continue reading
Published on:

by

Encroachment, or trespass, is an invasion of real property rights by another. It can be anything, such as a fence, a railroad, landscaping, a parking lot or building. When the owner of the property wants to stop it, they may file an action for a permanent injunction prohibiting the use. Real Estate attorneys frequently see actions for injunction resulting in cross-complaints to establish a right to use the property, such as by adverse possession. However, the decisions regarding the statutes of limitations in such cases vary somewhat unpredictably, due to there being two sets of statutes that may apply –one giving 3 years, the other 5. In a decision by the Third District Court of Appeals (covering 23 counties including Sacramento, Yolo, Placer & El Dorado, full list below*) that has not been agreed with by the Supreme Court or other Districts, the court ruled that enjoining a permanent encroachment should be characterized as an action to recover real property, applying the 5 year statute..

Sacramento-encroachment-attorneyIn Harrison v. Welch, buyers of a vacant lot brought an action against their neighbor to quiet title and to enjoin neighbor’s encroachment on their land. The neighbor, who had placed a woodshed and landscaping on the lot, filed a cross-complaint alleging adverse possession and prescriptive easement. The trial judge ruled that the Buyer was barred by the statute of limitations and that the neighbors had not established adverse possession or prescriptive easement. Nonetheless, the court engaged in an equitable “balancing of the hardships, giving both the plaintiff and the defendant some satisfaction. Both parties appealed.

The statute of limitations issues revolved around two sets of statutes covering different concepts – recovery of real property, vs. stopping an encroachment. The statutes are in two consecutive Chapters of the Code of Civil Procedure-

Continue reading
Published on:

by

In a sales transaction, there is often included a guaranty, where one party guarantees to pay the debt of another. More accurately, a guarantor is “one who promises to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another, or hypothecates property as security therefor.” (Civil.C. 2787). Thus if you buy a business or real estate, and the seller is concerned that you might not be able to pay for it, the seller may want someone with a stronger balance sheet to guaranty the debt. When a dispute arises, Sacramento business and real estate attorneys question what exactly was guaranteed, and if the guarantor was exonerated. Exoneration can occur if the creditor or seller does something that changes the terms of the deal without the guarantor’s approval. Both issues arose in a recent decision concerning the sale of a motorcycle dealership.

Sacramento-real-esate-loan-guaranty-attorneyIn G&W Warren’s Inc. v. Judson V. Dabney II, the Warrens sold their dealership to Dabney. The paperwork starts with a master “Asset Purchase Agreement.” This incorporated by reference …

– (1) a promissory note in the amount of $1,016,000 signed by Dabney as Maker;

Continue reading