Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff-appellant Laura Gray was the sole net income beneficiary of the Edward B. Cantor Trust. Defendant-appellant Jewish Federation of Palm Springs and the Desert Area was one of three remainder beneficiaries of the Cantor Trust. Cantor died in August 1991. The main asset of the Cantor Trust was an interest in commercial rental property Las Vegas, Nevada. In 2001, respondent Martha Jimenez was appointed the trustee of the Cantor Trust. In 2005, Gray was appointed co-trustee along with Jimenez. In 2007, Gray and Jimenez made an attempt to provide an appropriate accounting to the remainder beneficiaries of the Cantor Trust when Jimenez wanted to resign as trustee. Jewish Federation objected to the accounting. Gray filed several other amended accountings to which Jewish Federation objected. Gray was advised to prepare an accounting that addressed the income and principal that was distributed by the Las Vegas property management company. Gray filed a Petition for Instructions to Ascertain Beneficiaries to the Cantor Trust seeking a determination that Jewish Federation was a proper remainder beneficiary as the name of the beneficiary in the trust documents was Project Exodus. The Petition was denied as “bogus.” Gray was ordered removed as the co-trustee of the Cantor Trust in 2009. Gray and Jimenez filed one more accounting. Jewish Federation’s objections were set for trial. Gray appealed her removal as trustee and also the trial court’s order that she must provide a complete accounting of distributions to income and principal from the management company for the Las Vegas property. In a prior unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeal denied Gray's arguments finding that an accounting from the management company was necessary, and that the trial court properly removed her as trustee. The case was remanded, and more accountings were filed. Jewish Federation objected and a trial was set. The trial court found that Gray had to reimburse the Cantor Trust for items improperly distributed to income rather than principal; Gray had to pay Jewish Federation's attorney's fees; and to repay the Trust for trustee fees she was paid. Gray appealed, and finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Gray v. Jewish Federation of Palm Springs" on Justia Law

Samuel Heckart brought this action against A-1 Self Storage, Inc., Caster Properties, Inc., Caster Family Enterprises, Inc., Caster Group LP, and Deans & Homer (together, Defendants) for violations of the Unfair Competition Law, violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, negligent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy. Heckart alleged A-1's sale of a Customer Goods Protection Plan (the Protection Plan) in connection with its rental of storage space constituted unlicensed sale of insurance. The form Protection Plan required the tenant to either initial to accept or decline participation in the plan. Heckart declined participation by initialing that option, which provided: "No, I decline participation in the . . . Protection Plan. I am currently covered by an insurance plan that covers my belongings in the storage facility. I understand that I need to provide the policy information in writing to the facility Owner within 30 days or I will automatically be enrolled in the . . . Protection Plan until I do provide such information to the Owner." Heckart "inadvertently" purchased the Protection Plan and was enrolled in it, presumably because he failed to provide proof of insurance within 30 days. In April 2013, Heckart, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated California residents, sued A-1 and Caster Group. The trial court sustained Defendants' demurrer to Heckart's first amended complaint without leave to amend, concluding the Protection Plan was not insurance. Heckart appealed, contending his allegations were sufficient to state the asserted causes of action because the Protection Plan was insurance that must comply with the Insurance Code. The Court of Appeal found his arguments unavailing and affirmed. View "Heckart v. A-1 Self Storage" on Justia Law

The Alameda County Waste Management Authority imposed a $9.55 annual charge on all households for disposal of household hazardous waste, by enactment of an ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Establishing a Household Hazardous Waste Collection and Disposal Fee.” Crawley challenged the Ordinance via a petition for a writ of mandate or administrative mandamus, arguing that the fee constituted an assessment under article XIII D of the California Constitution, requiring approval by a majority of the electorate pursuant to section 4. In the alternative, Crawley contended the fee was not imposed in compliance with the requirements of article XIII D, section 6. The court of appeal affirmed dismissal without leave to amend, rejecting Crawley’s assertion that the fee is not incidental to property ownership and concluding that the fee falls within an exemption to the constitutional requirements. View "Crawley v. Alameda Cnty, Waste Mgmt. Auth." on Justia Law

Movants-appellants Ali Fadavi, Shadi Ghazi, Pamela Bacha, Mary Roll, Jenna Pearce, Joe Pearce, Michael Ehsani, Robert Glass, and Rocheda Reid appealed an order denying their motion to intervene in the underlying lawsuit on the grounds it was not timely. Brookfield Ziani LLC (Brookfield) constructed a condominium development in Newport Coast. In July 2012, Ziani Homeowners Association (HOA) sued Brookfield and others, alleging construction defects, including plumbing defects. Movants were owners of individual units within the Condominium Development and were HOA members. The plumbing defect claims were the largest item (by cost of repair) in the lawsuit. The HOA complaint was brought in the name of the HOA. From the outset, the HOA board of directors and its attorney, Mr. Kaneda, represented to the individual unit owners, including Movants, that the HOA was pursuing the plumbing defect claims and would not settle unless and until it obtained full recovery to pay for the necessary repairs to the common areas and to the individual units. The HOA board and Mr. Kaneda told the individual unit owners they could file their own lawsuits, but discouraged them from doing so, because, they promised, the HOA and its counsel were bearing the expenses of the litigation and were vigorously pursuing all of the plumbing defect claims. The HOA eventually agreed to settle the lawsuit with Brookfield. At the one HOA board meeting, the individual unit owners were informed of the existence of the settlement, but not its terms. The HOA and its counsel refused to answer questions about the settlement, including questions about the plumbing defect claims. One HOA board member resigned in protest over the settlement. At a subsequent board meeting, Mr. Kaneda disclosed more terms of the settlement, which allegedly showed the settlement would leave the individual unit owners with some combination of out-of-pocket expenses for the plumbing repairs, a special HOA assessment, and depleted HOA reserves. In May 2014, Movants filed a motion to intervene (Motion) in the suit. Among the things Movants argued was that the HOA board and its counsel were no longer adequately representing Movants' interests due to the trickle of information they received about the settlement. Movants contended the trial court erred as a matter of law by ruling their Motion was untimely, based on the finding that almost two years had elapsed from the date “[t]he individual homeowners knew or should have known about this litigation on or about the date the complaint was filed, 7/13/12.” Movants argued the court should have determined the timeliness issue, based on the date they knew or should have known their interests in the litigation were not being adequately represented. The Court of Appeal agreed with Movants, and reversed the trial court's decision denying their Motion to intervene. View "Ziani Homeowners Ass'n v. Brookfield Ziani LLC" on Justia Law

In 1999, defendant City of Anaheim issued a conditional use permit (CUP 4153) permitting development of two hotels (Project) by plaintiff IHG MANAGEMENT MARYLAND (IHG) on property owned by plaintiff HPT IHG-2 PROPERTIES TRUST. At the time defendants issued CUP 4153, it had a plan to construct the Gene Autry Way Overpass on the south side of the Property. Construction would require taking a portion of the Property and eliminating a substantial number of plaintiffs’ required parking spaces. To build the Overpass according to its plan, defendants would also be required to acquire adjoining property, with a triangular remnant (Triangle) remaining after construction. The resolution approving CUP 4153 also set out other development requirements, including upgraded setbacks and landscape. According to plaintiffs, defendants agreed they would build the Parking Structure and comply with the same upgraded setbacks and landscape requirements. After defendants built the Overpass, they enacted CUP 5573 that allowed construction of a surface parking lot instead of the Parking Structure and which permitted setbacks and landscaping that did not conform to the upgraded setbacks and landscape required for the Project. Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandate asking the court to set aside CUP 5573. The trial court found defendants were estopped to change the design approved in CUP 4153, granted the petition, and ordered CUP 5573 to be set aside. Defendants raised several arguments why this was error. They assert plaintiffs had no vested right in the Triangle because CUP 4153 did not apply to that property. Further, they contend, CUP 4153 did not and could not require defendants to build and transfer the Parking Structure to plaintiffs. They also argued plaintiffs did not prove the elements of equitable estoppel. Finding no error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. View "HPT IHG-2 Properties Trust v. City of Anaheim" on Justia Law

In 2014, defendant-respondent City of Rancho Mirage passed Ordinance 1084, which amended the City’s municipal code that provided rules and regulations for renting private homes as short-term vacation rentals. Among other things, it required that a person over the age of 30 sign a contract agreeing to be the responsible person for the rental and ensuring that all of the occupants follow the rules and regulations regarding vacation rentals, in order to minimize the negative secondary effects on the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Plaintiff-appellant Brian Harrison owned a condominium in the City. Harrison filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction alleging that Ordinance 1084 violated California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act), which prohibited a business establishment from discriminating in housing or other accommodations on the basis of age. The City filed a demurrer contending that the Unruh Act did not apply to legislation by the City. After hearing the matter, the trial court granted the City’s demurrer without leave to amend. Harrison argued on appeal that the trial court erred by sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend because his Complaint stated sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for a violation of the Unruh Act. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Harrison v. City of Rancho Mirage" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation appealed a judgment of approximately $1.1 million plus interest, costs, and attorney fees of approximately $1.8 million in favor of plaintiff-respondent Hot Rods, LLC. This case involved an environmentally compromised property Hot Rods purchased from Northrop and the alleged damages stemming from environmental cleanup and related issues. The matter was tried by a referee pursuant to stipulation, and judgment was entered by the trial court, adopting the referee’s recommendations. Northrop alleged numerous errors. Upon review, the Court of Appeal found that there was language in the referee’s statement of decision indicating Northrop had negligently misrepresented certain facts, but did not find any damages were proximately caused, nor did the referee award any damages on that cause of action. The Court concluded the referee erred in admitting certain evidence, and that a finding of negligent misrepresentation was therefore improper, and not sufficiently supported by substantial evidence. The Court reversed the bulk of the damages award, and remanded for a reconsideration of which party was the prevailing party, and therefore entitled to attorney fees. View "Hot Rods v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp." on Justia Law

In November 2009, County of Alameda voters approved Measures I and J levying special parcel taxes by the Albany Unified School District. Plaintiff-appellant Golden Gate Hill Development Company, Inc. was the owner of a parcel of real property in the City of Albany subject to the tax. In February 2014, appellant filed suit against the County and District seeking a refund of taxes paid under the Measures. Golden Gage Hill alleged the tax rates in the Measures were improper because different rates are imposed on residential and nonresidential properties, as well as nonresidential properties of different sizes. The complaint referenced a recent decision in this district, “Borikas v. Alameda Unified School Dist.” (214 Cal.App.4th 135 (2013)), which declared invalid a different parcel tax with similar rate classifications. Respondents moved to dismiss, contending the complaint failed to state a claim because, under Code of Civil Procedure section 860, et seq. (“the validation statutes”), appellant was required to present its claims in a “reverse validation action” within 60 days of passage of the Measures. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Because appellant has not shown there was a basis for its refund claim independent of the alleged invalidity of the Measures, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Golden Gate Hill Development Co. v. County of Alameda" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate and/or prohibition asking the superior court to vacate its order granting the petition of real party in interest, the District, for a right of entry pursuant to the Eminent Domain Law, Code Civ. Proc., 1245.010 et seq. The superior court permitted the District to conduct certain investigations and environmental testing on petitioner's property. Petitioner argued that the District's actions constitute a taking requiring the District to file a condemnation suit to litigate the need for the taking and to provide petitioner with just compensation. The court concluded, however, that the District's proposed actions, which are temporary and limited intrusions on the property, neither violate the entry statutes nor do they constitute a taking requiring a jury determination of just compensation. Accordingly, the court denied the writ petition. View "Young's Market Co. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The county seized and sold residential property that was in default on property taxes. Sale proceeds exceeded the tax delinquency. Carloss, the son of the deceased former resident of the property, made a claim under Rev. & Tax. Code, 4675(a), (e)(1)(B), (f), which permits a “person with title of record” to tax-defaulted property or the person’s successor to claim sale proceeds in excess of the tax liability. Carloss’s mother was listed as the property owner in county tax records and had lived in the house for over 50 years. The county denied the claim because no deed appears in the county records, reasoning that title of record can be established only with a recorded deed. The trial court found the action time-barred, as not filed within 90 days of the administrative decision. The court of appeal reversed, finding the action timely and that a recorded grant deed is not the exclusive means of proving title of record. While proving title may be difficult in the absence of such a deed, in unusual circumstances such as Carloss alleged, title of record may be established by various recorded instruments, assessor’s records, and testimony that, as a whole, proves that the claimant or the claimant’s predecessor in interest held title of record. View "Carloss v. County of Alameda" on Justia Law