Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Martha owns the largest undeveloped parcel of property in the vicinity of Tiburon, 110 acres on top of a mountain, overlooking much of the town and commanding a stunning view of San Francisco Bay. For decades, Martha has sought approval from the County of Marin to develop the property. Local opposition has been intense, including federal court litigation, starting in 1975 and resulting in stipulated judgments in 1976 and 2007. The county twice publicly agreed to approve Martha building no fewer than 43 units on the property. In 2017, the county certified an environmental impact report and conditionally approved Martha’s master plan for 43 single-family residences. The county believed its actions were compelled by the stipulated judgments.The town and residents sued, claiming that the county effectively agreed it would not follow or enforce state law, specifically, the California Environmental Quality Act, to prevent the development of an anticipated project. The court of appeal upheld the approvals. Governmental powers are indefeasible and inalienable; they cannot be surrendered, suspended, contracted away, waived, or otherwise divested. Government cannot bind the hands of its successors. In this case, the county did not abdicate its authority or otherwise undertake not to comply with CEQA. “With its eyes wide open,” the county complied with a binding, final judgment; that judgment in no way anticipated or legitimated ignoring CEQA. View "Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Joseph Amato sold a house at a price that he contended was much less than the property was worth. He sued the broker who listed the property for him, defendant-respondent Steve Downs, as well as the broker’s employer, defendant-respondent Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company (Coldwell Banker). On the day of trial, the court found that Amato had waived his right to a jury trial by failing to comply with a local pretrial procedural rule. It then denied Amato’s request that a different judge hear the case due to the trial judge’s involvement in pretrial settlement negotiations. After Amato presented his evidence, the court granted a motion for judgment in favor of Downs and Coldwell Banker on all of Amato’s claims. On appeal, Amato argued he was erroneously deprived of his right to a jury trial. Furthermore, the judge should have recused himself as trier of fact, one of Amato's witnesses was dismissed before the witness finished testifying, and defendants' motion should not have been granted. After review, the Court of Appeal found the trial court indeed erred in deeming Amato to have waived jury trial despite his violations of the local rules. Judgment was reversed on this ground, and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Amato v. Downs" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, the trial court resolved a property line dispute between two neighbors by creating an easement in favor of Respondents, the encroaching property owners. It granted Respondents an exclusive implied easement and, alternatively, an equitable easement over the entire encroachment. Appellants appealed the judgment.   Appellants made three primary arguments on appeal. First, the trial court’s judgment “should be reversed because, as a matter of law, the court cannot create an exclusive implied easement.” Second, that the court erred in creating an implied easement.” Third, that the court abused its discretion and “erred in creating an equitable easement” which “is not narrowly tailored to promote justice and is significantly greater in scope and duration than what is necessary to protect [respondents’] needs.”   The Second Appellate District reversed the trial court’s judgment on the cause of action for implied easement and affirmed the judgment on the cause of action for equitable easement. The court held that the trial court erred in granting an exclusive implied easement that amount to fee title. The court reasoned that in this case there was no express grant of an exclusive easement. And the encroachment, totaling 1,296 square feet of appellants’ 9,815-square-foot property, cannot reasonably be qualified as de minimis as it amounts to approximately 13.2 percent of Appellants’ property.  The court affirmed the trial court’s creation of an equitable easement reasoning that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that respondents were innocent and did not have knowledge of their encroachment on Appellants’ property. View "Romero v. Shih" on Justia Law

In 2008, Morris defaulted on her home mortgage. After negotiating a loan modification, she again defaulted in 2009. Morris and her husband, Mazhari, then filed two bankruptcy proceedings. Mazhari died while the second bankruptcy was pending. Morris unsuccessfully tried to obtain another loan modification. Following the 2016 lifting of the automatic stay in her third bankruptcy, Morris’s home was sold at public auction to Chase, the deed of trust beneficiary and successor to the original lender. Morris claims that the trustee’s sale occurred without notice to her because Chase and then Rushmore, the loan servicer, pursued foreclosure secretly while giving her false assurances that loan modification terms were forthcoming and shuttling her between uninformed representatives who gave her inconsistent information about her modification request.Morris sought post-foreclosure relief, including damages, an order setting aside the trustee’s sale, and a declaration quieting title under the California Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR) (Civ. Code 2923.6, 2923.7) and other theories. In 2018, the trial court dismissed all claims. After another delay occasioned by another bankruptcy, Morris appealed. The court of appeal reversed in part, with respect to claims alleging failure to appoint a single point of contact (HBOR 2923.7), dual tracking (2923.6), and failure to mail upon request a notice of default and notice of trustee’s sale 2924b). The court otherwise affirmed. View "Morris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A." on Justia Law

AIDS Healthcare Foundation and Coalition to Preserve LA (CPLA) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court challenging the approval by the City of Los Angeles (the “City”) of a real estate development project ( the “project”) proposed in an area covered by the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan. Plaintiffs argued that the City’s approval of the project violated the 15 percent requirement because it did not commit 15 percent of the residential units for affordable housing. The court denied the petition and entered judgment for the City and 6400 Sunset, LLC (the “real party”).   The Second Appellate District affirmed the Superior Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s writ of mandate arguing that the City’s approval of the project violated the 15 percent requirement. The court held that Dissolution Law rendered the 15 percent requirement inoperative and, even if it had remained operative, it does not apply. The court reasoned that the Dissolution Law renders the 15 percent requirement inoperative because complying with that requirement depends upon the allocation of tax increments to redevelopment agencies. Further, the Dissolution Law did not grant to the housing successor any powers the former redevelopment agency did not have (Sec. 34176, subd. (a)(1)), and former redevelopment agencies did not have general police powers. Thus, because general police powers were not available to redevelopment agencies under the Community Redevelopment Law and the Dissolution Law granted housing successors no greater powers, the City could not, as a housing successor, invoke such powers to require a developer to comply with the 15 percent requirement. View "AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. City of L.A." on Justia Law

The California Coastal Act of 1976 (“the Act”) requires, among other things, a city to obtain approval from the Coastal Commission for any amendments to its coastal plan. Local coastal programs contain a land use plan and a local implementing program. A local implementing program consists of zoning ordinances, zoning maps, and other possible actions.The City of Manhattan Beach (“the City”) sent the plaintiff a notice of violation for operating a short-term rental. The plaintiff petitioned for a writ of mandate to prevent the City from enforcing its ban on short-term rentals. The trial court determined that the City’s original local implementing plan permitted short-term rentals. Thus, when the City enacted the prohibition on short-term rentals it needed to obtain approval from the Coastal Commission. The City appealed.The Second Appellate District affirmed. The City’s residential zoning ordinance prior to the modifications at issue did not distinguish between long-term and short-term rentals. The court held that the use of the term “residence” doesn’t affect the analysis because it does not apply some minimum length of occupancy. View "Keen v. City of Manhattan Beach" on Justia Law

A condominium owner sued her homeowners’ association alleging five causes of action, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief as to rules governing elections, voting, sales, and leasing. One cause of action fell to a demurrer, another to an anti-SLAPP motion to strike. The parties stipulated that three claims were mooted when the association amended its rules. Both sides moved for attorney fees as the prevailing party under the Davis-Sterling Act (Civ. Code 4000); the homeowner also sought fees as the successful party under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.The court of appeal affirmed the denial of attorney fees to both sides. Artus has not shown any abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling that Artus was not a “successful party” and failed to show that her lawsuit resulted in a ‘significant benefit’ to the ‘general public or a large class of persons.’ “Her one real win,” requiring the association to incur greater effort in preparing its notice materials for proposed rules changes, is of questionable significance to most association members and will likely result in higher assessments. The association simply took unilateral action to avoid judicial rulings and ‘kicked the can down the road;’ View "Artus v. Gramercy Towers Condominium Association" on Justia Law

In 2011, Lafferty sought to develop 76 homes on a 31.7-acre Garaventa Hills site in Livermore. A 2012 draft environmental impact report recognized that any alterations to existing drainage patterns may affect the quantity, timing, and quality of precipitation needed to maintain a functioning ecosystem. There was considerable opposition to Lafferty’s proposal. Lafferty reduced the number of residential units to 47, eliminated a vehicular bridge over Altamont Creek, and preserved a large rock outcropping. The final environmental impact report (FEIR) was released in 2014. The planning commission recommended that the city reject Lafferty’s second proposal. The city council declined to certify the FEIR. In 2017, Lafferty proposed a smaller-scale project with 44 new residences. According to the reissued FEIR (RFEIR), the project would result in the permanent removal of 31.78 acres of grasslands with an additional 1.18 acres being temporarily disturbed for construction; various mitigation measures were proposed, including the acquisition of an 85-acre compensatory mitigation site. The city certified the RFEIR and approved the Project.Opponents filed suit under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code 2100). The court of appeal reversed and remanded. Opponents raised a challenge to the adequacy of the RFEIR’s analysis of the “no project” alternative that is both preserved for appeal and meritorious. View "Save the Hill Group v. City of Livermore" on Justia Law

Appellants sought a petition for writ of mandate and/or injunctive relief compelling Caltrans to sell them the homes they are renting at the original price paid by Caltrans when it purchased the properties to make way for the 710 Freeway. Under the version of Government Code section 54237.9 effective at the time of the decision in the trial court, the trial court held that Caltrans was permitted to sell the homes at the original price paid by Caltrans adjusted for inflation. In July 2021, while this appeal was pending, the California Legislature amended section 54237.9 by adding a sentence precluding adjustment for inflation.Because this suit seeks a writ of mandamus and injunctive relief compelling Caltrans to sell the homes at a certain price, and thus prospective relief, the Court of Appeal concluded that California Supreme Court precedent establishes that it must apply the law current at the time of the decision in the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded to the trial court to apply the current version of section 54237.9. Finally, appellants' challenge to the trial court's evidentiary challenge as to Exhibit 7 is moot. View "Flores v. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

In 1996, Schmier converted Berkley apartment units into condominiums. Berkeley ordinances then required that he record Affordable Housing Fee liens based on a formula. Schmier's lien agreements that provided, “Execution of this document shall not prejudice the right of the undersigned to challenge the validity of the Affordable Housing Fee. In the event that the Affordable Housing Fee is ... rescinded … this lien shall be void.” Schmier alleged that in 2008, Berkeley rescinded that ordinance. The new section includes a different formula. In 2019, Schmier advised Berkeley of the sale of the property. Berkeley requested an affordable housing fee of $147,202.66, calculated under the rescinded ordinance. Under the current ordinance, the fee would have been less than half of what was requested.The court of appeal reversed the dismissal of the suit, as barred by a 90-day statute of limitations (Subdivision Map Act, Gov. Code, 66499.37). Schmier did not challenge the requirement that he execute a lien agreement, nor did he challenge the adoption of the former ordinance, its alleged recission, or adoption of a new section; Schmier’s complaint is not subject to the Map Act’s limitations period. Even assuming the 90-day period applied, it could not have begun to run until Berkeley rejected Schmier’s assertion that the lien agreement was no longer operative when the city rescinded the former ordinance. The language of the lien agreements is ambiguous, rendering both asserted constructions arguably reasonable. View "Schmier v. City of Berkeley" on Justia Law