Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Owners of timeshare estates in a resort sued the County of Riverside, challenging the legality of an annual fee charged for separate property tax assessments. The owners argued that the fee exceeded the reasonable cost of providing the assessment, constituting a tax that required voter approval, which had not been obtained. The trial court rejected the owners' argument and ruled in favor of the County.The Superior Court of Riverside County entered judgment for the County, finding that the fee did not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the separate assessment. The court considered various costs, including those related to a new computer system and assessment appeals, even though these costs were not included in the original budget used to set the fee.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the County did not meet its burden to prove that the $23 fee was not a tax requiring voter approval under Article XIII C of the California Constitution. The court found that the County's methodology for setting the fee was flawed, as it included costs unrelated to the specific service of providing separate timeshare assessments and did not accurately reflect the actual cost of the service. The court also ruled that the trial court erred in considering costs incurred after the fiscal year used to set the fee.The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the appropriate refund amount and to decide on the declaratory, injunctive, and/or writ relief sought by the owners. The County must prove the reasonable and necessary costs of providing the separate assessment service, excluding costs for valuing the timeshare project as a whole. View "Scott v. County of Riverside" on Justia Law

A charter city in California entered into an agreement with a private developer to revitalize a nearly vacant mall into a multipurpose development. The city contributed approximately $51.36 million in local funds for public improvements, while the developer invested $143 million of its own funds and obtained additional loans. The developer selected the contractors and paid workers less than the prevailing wage, relying on a city ordinance exempting the project from the Prevailing Wage Law (PWL).The Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) determined that the project was subject to the PWL, as it involved public funds. The developer challenged this determination, but the Superior Court of Riverside County affirmed the DIR's decision, concluding that the project was not a municipal affair exempt from the PWL.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court held that the project was not a municipal affair under the home rule provision of the California Constitution. The court distinguished this case from others where charter cities directly managed and funded public works projects. Here, the developer controlled the construction, selected contractors, and bore the majority of the financial burden. The court concluded that the primary purpose of the project was to benefit the developer, not the city, and thus, the PWL applied. The judgment was affirmed, and the DIR was awarded costs on appeal. View "Palm Springs Promenade, LLC v. Dept. of Industrial Relations" on Justia Law

Coyote Aviation Corporation (Coyote) entered into a 20-year lease with the City of Redlands (City) on April 4, 2000, for property at the Redlands Municipal Airport. The lease included two 15-year options to extend. An amended lease was signed on September 5, 2000, with the same termination date of April 4, 2020. Coyote believed the lease should terminate on September 5, 2020, but no written amendment was made. In June 2020, Coyote attempted to exercise the extension option, but the City rejected it, stating the lease had already terminated. The City issued a 30-day notice to quit, and Coyote filed a lawsuit for breach of contract and other claims.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County sustained the City’s demurrer to Coyote’s first amended complaint (FAC) and entered judgment against Coyote. The court found that Coyote failed to provide timely written notice to exercise the extension option as required by the lease. The court also rejected Coyote’s claims of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaratory relief, and promissory estoppel, finding no clear promise by the City to amend the lease termination date.The City filed an unlawful detainer action when Coyote did not vacate the property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, ordering Coyote to vacate. The court found no triable issues of fact regarding the timeliness of Coyote’s notice to exercise the extension option and rejected Coyote’s arguments of estoppel and waiver.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed the trial court’s decisions. The court held that the lease’s terms were clear and unambiguous, requiring written notice to exercise the extension option. The court also found that City officials did not have the authority to amend the lease orally or accept late notice. The court upheld the trial court’s rulings on the demurrer and summary judgment, denying Coyote’s claims and requests for leave to amend. View "Coyote Aviation Corp. v. City of Redlands" on Justia Law

Leslie J. Knoles (Decedent) and Ruth Catello co-owned a property as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. In 2020, Decedent recorded a quitclaim deed to herself, which, if valid, severed the joint tenancy and created a tenancy in common. Decedent died shortly after recording the deed. Decedent's four surviving siblings initiated probate proceedings to distribute her estate, including the property. Catello filed a competing petition for letters of administration and later a petition to administer a will. Concurrently, Catello sued two siblings to cancel the quitclaim deed and quiet title to the property. The siblings filed a cross-claim to partition the property by sale.The Superior Court of San Diego County entered an interlocutory judgment for partition by sale, identifying the property owners as Catello and Decedent’s estate. The judgment ordered the sale proceeds to be distributed equally between Catello and Decedent’s estate after expenses. Catello appealed, arguing that the siblings lacked standing to sue for partition because the probate court had not yet determined ownership of the property.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. The court held that the siblings lacked standing to bring the partition claim because their ownership interest in the property was not confirmed and was contingent upon the outcome of the ongoing probate proceedings. The court emphasized that a party seeking partition must have clear title, which the siblings did not possess. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and directed the case to be dismissed. View "Amundson v. Catello" on Justia Law

Plaintiff purchased a rural property in Santa Cruz County, which was accessed via a private road crossing his neighbor's property. A dispute arose when the neighbor claimed an easement over the road, leading to increased traffic due to marijuana cultivation. The neighbor filed two lawsuits asserting an easement, both of which were dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff then sued to quiet title, and the neighbor cross-complained, asserting an easement based on a 1971 deed. The trial court ruled in favor of the neighbor, finding an express easement, a decision affirmed on appeal.Plaintiff funded his defense using retirement savings after Chicago Title Insurance Company, his title insurer, denied his tender for defense, citing policy exclusions. Plaintiff sued Chicago Title for breach of contract and bad faith. The trial court found Chicago Title had a duty to defend from the initial tender but rejected Plaintiff's bad faith claim and request for punitive damages. The court awarded damages for the diminution in property value but denied damages for periods outside the litigation.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, found that Chicago Title acted in bad faith by failing to defend Plaintiff despite the potential for coverage indicated by the 1971 deed. The court reversed the trial court's judgment on the bad faith claim and remanded for a determination of damages resulting from the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of punitive damages and its award of prejudgment interest on the additional diminution in value. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's findings. View "Bartel v. Chicago Title Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Old Golden Oaks LLC applied for an encroachment permit and a grading permit from Amador County for a housing development project. The county deemed the applications incomplete and requested additional information. Old Golden Oaks filed a petition for writ of mandate, arguing that the county violated the Permit Streamlining Act by requesting information not specified in the submittal checklists for the permits.The Superior Court of Amador County sustained the county’s demurrer without leave to amend, finding that the encroachment permit checklist allowed the county to request additional information and that the county had statutory authority to seek information necessary for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court agreed with Old Golden Oaks that the catch-all provision in the county’s encroachment permit submittal checklist violated the Permit Streamlining Act because it did not specify in detail the required information. However, the court found that the county could condition the completeness of the grading permit application on additional environmental information because the grading permit checklist informed Old Golden Oaks that the project must comply with CEQA. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment regarding the encroachment permit but affirmed the judgment regarding the grading permit. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs on appeal. View "Old Golden Oaks v. County of Amador" on Justia Law

The case involves the County of San Diego's adoption of thresholds of significance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to streamline the evaluation of transportation-related environmental effects for land-use development projects. The County adopted two specific thresholds: one for "infill" projects within unincorporated villages and another for projects generating fewer than 110 automobile trips per day. Plaintiffs, two environmental groups, challenged these thresholds, arguing they were not supported by substantial evidence and did not comply with CEQA requirements.The Superior Court of San Diego County ruled in favor of the County, finding that the infill threshold was consistent with CEQA and that the small project threshold was justified by substantial evidence, as it aligned with recommendations from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR).The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that the County's infill threshold was not supported by substantial evidence, as it relied on unsubstantiated assumptions that infill development would generally result in insignificant vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts. The court found that the County failed to provide evidence showing that development in designated infill areas would typically generate VMT below the County average.Similarly, the court found that the small project threshold lacked substantial evidentiary support. The County had adopted OPR's recommendation without providing evidence that projects generating fewer than 110 trips per day would have a less-than-significant transportation impact in San Diego County.The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court's judgment and remanded the case with directions to grant the petition for writ of mandate, requiring the County to comply with CEQA by providing substantial evidence to support the adopted thresholds. View "Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. County of San Diego" on Justia Law

The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) awarded a contract to OC 405 Partners Joint Venture (OC 405) for improvements to Interstate 405. OC 405 then awarded subcontracting work to Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. (GSB). However, the parties disagreed on the scope of the subcontract work and did not execute a written subcontract. OC 405 subsequently contracted with another subcontractor, leading GSB to file a lawsuit seeking benefit of the bargain damages, claiming OC 405 did not comply with Public Contract Code section 4107’s substitution procedures.The Superior Court of Orange County granted summary judgment in favor of OC 405 and other defendants, holding that GSB was not entitled to the protections of section 4107 because it did not meet the requirements of section 4100 et seq. Specifically, GSB was not a "listed subcontractor" in the original bid, and its proposed work did not exceed one-half of 1 percent of the prime contractor’s total bid, a threshold requirement under section 4104.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision, concluding that section 4107’s substitution procedures did not apply to OC 405’s substitution of GSB. The court emphasized that the protections of section 4100 et seq. only apply to subcontractors whose proposed work exceeds the one-half of 1 percent threshold of the prime contractor’s total bid. Since GSB’s bid did not meet this threshold, it was not entitled to the protections under section 4107. The court also noted that the contractual provisions in the prime contract did not alter this statutory requirement. Thus, the judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed. View "Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v. Astaldi Construction" on Justia Law

A landlord argued that a case brought by the Los Angeles City Attorney to enforce California's Public Nuisance Law (PNL) violated Government Code section 53165.1, which bars local governments from penalizing tenants or landlords solely due to contact with law enforcement. The case involved a 116-unit apartment complex in North Hollywood, where the People alleged a gang-related public nuisance. The complaint sought abatement of the nuisance, a permanent injunction, and civil penalties.The Los Angeles County Superior Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the defendants to implement several security measures, including proper lighting, video monitoring, and private security. The court also ordered criminal background checks on tenants. Defendants appealed, and a different panel of the Court of Appeal affirmed the preliminary injunction but directed the trial court to consider modifying it in light of section 53165.1. On remand, the trial court modified the injunction to remove the background check requirements but confirmed the validity of the rest of the injunction.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and held that enforcing the PNL is not prohibited by section 53165.1 because the PNL is a state law, not a local ordinance, rule, policy, program, or regulation. The court also determined that the action brought by the city attorney on behalf of the People of the State of California is not an action by a "local government" within the meaning of section 53165.1. Additionally, the court found that the preliminary injunction did not penalize tenants or landlords solely due to contact with law enforcement. The order was affirmed. View "People ex rel. Soto v. Group IX BP Properties" on Justia Law

Fell Holdings LLC and Stanyan Holdings LLC, misdescribed as California limited liability companies instead of Delaware limited liability companies, filed unlawful detainer proceedings against Fell Street Automotive Clinic, Stanyan Street Automotive Clinic, and Laurence Nasey. Nasey had lost ownership of two properties in San Francisco during a nonjudicial foreclosure but continued operating his businesses through a leaseback arrangement with the new owners, memorialized in a settlement agreement. The agreement allowed Nasey to repurchase the properties, with stipulated judgments against him if he failed to do so.The trial court entered judgments in favor of Fell Holdings and Stanyan Holdings, which were later enforced. Appellants moved to vacate these judgments, arguing that the misdescription of the plaintiffs' corporate status deprived the court of jurisdiction, rendering all judicial actions void. The trial court denied the vacatur motions.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the misdescription of the plaintiffs' corporate status did not automatically void the judgments. Instead, the issue was whether the discrepancy could be cured by amendment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1). The court reversed the trial court's orders denying the vacatur motions and remanded the case, directing the trial court to vacate the judgments and enforcement orders without prejudice. The trial court was instructed to consider any motions by the plaintiffs to amend their complaints to correct the misdescription and to address appellants' arguments regarding the release of Nasey's $202,500 earnest money deposit. The parties were to bear their own costs on appeal. View "1215 Fell SF Owner LLC v. Fell Street Automotive Clinic" on Justia Law