Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, the decedents, Robert and Elise Sandiford, and Deon Detes Abrams, Sr., died after their vehicles collided on State Route 99 (SR 99) and struck a tree on land owned by Union Pacific Railroad Company (Union Pacific). The relatives of the decedents sued Union Pacific, alleging negligence for failing to remove the tree or take measures to protect the public from the dangerous condition it posed. Union Pacific moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty to remove the tree. The trial court denied the motion, finding no judicial exception to the ordinary duty of care under Civil Code section 1714.The trial court's denial of summary judgment was based on the application of factors from Rowland v. Christian, which did not support creating an exception to the ordinary duty of care. Union Pacific then filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, seeking to overturn the trial court's decision.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and held that Union Pacific did not have a duty to remove the tree or take other measures to protect the driving public from the alleged dangerous condition posed by the tree. The court considered the foreseeability of harm, the certainty of injury, and the closeness of the connection between Union Pacific’s conduct and the injury. It also weighed public policy factors, including moral blame, the policy of preventing future harm, the burden on the defendant, and the availability of insurance. The court concluded that public policy clearly supported creating a judicial exception to the ordinary duty of care, thus granting Union Pacific's petition for a writ of mandate and directing the trial court to grant Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment. View "Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In May 2017, the City of Alameda leased residential property to Shelby Sheehan. Sheehan stopped paying rent in December 2020 and did not pay for over 17 months. On April 5, 2022, the City served Sheehan with a three-day notice to pay rent or vacate, specifying payment to be made to "City of Alameda c/o River Rock Real Estate Group." Sheehan neither paid nor vacated, prompting the City to file an unlawful detainer action.Sheehan moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the notice was defective because it did not name a natural person as the payee and was ambiguous about the payment method. The trial court agreed, finding the notice invalid for not identifying a natural person and for being ambiguous about acceptable payment methods. Consequently, the court dismissed the action, and the City appealed.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo. The court disagreed with the trial court's narrow interpretation of "person" under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(2), holding that "person" includes corporations as well as natural persons. However, the court found the notice defective because it did not provide the correct and complete name of the corporation to whom rent should be paid, creating ambiguity and confusion. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Sheehan, concluding that the notice did not strictly comply with statutory requirements. The court did not address the trial court's finding of ambiguity based on payment method due to the notice's other deficiencies. View "City of Alameda v. Sheehan" on Justia Law

In 2022, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance extending the notice period for landlords pursuing at-fault evictions. The San Francisco Apartment Association and Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute sought a writ of mandate to prevent the City and County of San Francisco from enforcing the ordinance, arguing it was preempted by state law. The trial court partially granted the petition, finding the ordinance preempted only for nonpayment of rent evictions. Both parties appealed.The San Francisco Superior Court initially ruled that the ordinance conflicted with state law only regarding nonpayment of rent, citing a split in authority on notice periods for other fault-based evictions. The court referenced Tri County Apartment Association v. City of Mountain View, which invalidated extended notice periods, and Rental Housing Association of Northern Alameda County v. City of Oakland, which allowed them. The trial court felt bound by Rental Housing and limited its ruling to nonpayment of rent.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that the entire ordinance was preempted by state law. The court found that the ordinance was procedural, not substantive, as it extended the state-mandated three-day notice period to a minimum of 13 days, conflicting with the Unlawful Detainer Act's timelines. The court determined that state law fully occupies the field of landlord-tenant notification timelines, making the local ordinance invalid.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment in part, ruling that the entire ordinance was preempted by state law, and directed the superior court to issue a writ of mandate preventing the City and County of San Francisco from enforcing the ordinance. The plaintiffs were awarded their costs on appeal. View "S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F." on Justia Law

Cheryl Lynch, the owner of a residential property in San Clemente, California, engaged a general contractor for home improvement and repairs. The contractor hired Peter & Associates, Engineers, Geologists, Surveyors, Inc. (the Peter firm) to perform a geotechnical inspection of a footing trench. The Peter firm conducted a visual inspection and used a steel probe but did not perform subsurface exploration or laboratory testing. The footing later collapsed, causing significant damage to Lynch's home.Lynch filed a lawsuit in February 2021 against multiple parties, including the Peter firm, for breach of contract, nuisance, and negligence. The Peter firm moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty of care to Lynch due to the lack of a direct contract. The Superior Court of Orange County granted the motion, heavily relying on the precedent set by Weseloh Family Ltd. Partnership v. K.L. Wessel Construction Co., Inc., which found no duty of care in the absence of privity.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that the Peter firm failed to meet its burden in the summary judgment motion. The court held that the firm owed a duty of care to Lynch, applying the Biakanja factors, which consider the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, the foreseeability of harm, and other factors. The court also found that the trial court erred in dismissing Lynch's nuisance claim and in sustaining the Peter firm's evidentiary objections without proper basis.The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to deny the Peter firm's motion in its entirety. View "Lynch v. Peter & Associates" on Justia Law

American Building Innovation LP (ABI) was hired by Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC (Balfour Beatty) as a subcontractor for a school construction project. ABI had a workers’ compensation insurance policy when it began work, but the policy was canceled due to ABI’s refusal to pay outstanding premiums from a previous policy. This cancellation led to the automatic suspension of ABI’s contractor’s license. Despite knowing it was unlicensed and uninsured, ABI continued working on the project.The Superior Court of Orange County found that ABI was not duly licensed at all times during the performance of its work, as required by California law. ABI’s license was suspended because it failed to maintain workers’ compensation insurance. ABI later settled its premium dispute and had the policy retroactively reinstated, but the court found this retroactive reinstatement meaningless because it occurred long after the statute of limitations for any workers’ compensation claims had expired. The court ruled that ABI could not maintain its action to recover compensation for its work due to its lack of proper licensure.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The court held that ABI was not entitled to retroactive reinstatement of its license because the failure to maintain workers’ compensation insurance was not due to circumstances beyond ABI’s control. ABI’s decision not to pay the premiums and its false representations to the Contractors’ State License Board were within its control. Consequently, ABI was barred from bringing or maintaining the action under section 7031 of the Business and Professions Code. The court also affirmed the award of attorney fees to Balfour Beatty under the subcontract’s prevailing party attorney fee provision. View "American Building Innovations v. Balfour Beatty Construction" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Kimberly Syre appealed an order denying her motion to disqualify California Indian Legal Services (CILS) from representing defendant Mark Douglas. Syre had initially contacted CILS seeking representation for a quiet title lawsuit against Douglas but was declined due to her non-residency in Inyo County. She later filed the lawsuit with other counsel. Douglas, who is homeless and the son of the late property owner Charlotte Willett, successfully obtained representation from CILS. Syre argued that CILS had a conflict of interest due to her prior contact with them.The Superior Court of Inyo County denied Syre's motion to disqualify CILS, finding no conflict of interest. The court noted that Syre had only spoken to a non-attorney intake advocate at CILS and that no confidential information was shared with any attorney at CILS. The intake advocate had merely gathered preliminary information to determine Syre's eligibility for CILS's services, which she did not meet. The court also found that CILS had adequate screening measures in place to protect any confidential information.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that Syre was a prospective client but did not communicate any confidential information to an attorney at CILS. The court emphasized that the information shared was preliminary and necessary to determine eligibility for CILS's services. Additionally, the court noted that public interest law offices like CILS are treated differently from private law firms regarding disqualification rules. The court concluded that there was no substantial relationship between Syre and any attorney at CILS and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to disqualify. View "Syre v. Douglas" on Justia Law

In 2017, Riverside Mining Limited (Riverside Mining) leased 73 acres of its property to Quality Aggregates (Quality) for mining. By 2020, disputes arose, leading Quality to sue Riverside Mining in 2021 for breach of contract, trespass, and quiet title. In 2022, Riverside Mining filed an unlawful detainer action to evict Quality for alleged lease breaches. The parties agreed that Quality would deposit monthly rent payments with the court during the litigation. Quality later made a settlement offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998, which Riverside Mining did not accept. Riverside Mining then dismissed the unlawful detainer action without prejudice.The Superior Court of Riverside County dismissed the unlawful detainer action and later addressed two motions: Quality's motion for attorney fees under section 998 and Riverside Mining's motion to disburse the deposited rent payments. The court denied Quality's motion for attorney fees and granted Riverside Mining's motion for disbursement.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decisions. It held that Quality was not entitled to attorney fees under section 998 because Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (b)(2), precludes awarding attorney fees when an action is voluntarily dismissed. The court also affirmed the disbursement of the deposited funds to Riverside Mining, as Quality had no right to a setoff for attorney fees. The court's main holding was that section 998 does not independently authorize attorney fees without an underlying statutory or contractual right, and Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (b)(2), prevents such an award in cases of voluntary dismissal. View "Riverside Mining Limited v. Quality Aggregates" on Justia Law

The case involves the Westside Los Angeles Neighbors Network (appellant) challenging actions taken by the Los Angeles City Planning Commission (CPC) in March 2018 to implement parts of the Westside Mobility Plan. This plan aims to address congestion and mobility issues in the western part of Los Angeles. The appellant argued that the CPC’s actions did not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and sought to invalidate them.The Los Angeles County Superior Court reviewed the case and rejected most of the appellant’s contentions, denying the petition. The court found that the CPC was a decision-making body authorized to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and that substantial evidence supported the City’s determination that the Streetscape Plan was categorically exempt from CEQA. The court also found that the EIR was legally adequate.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the CPC was authorized to certify the EIR as it was a decision-making body for the project. The court also found that the Streetscape Plan was categorically exempt from CEQA under Guidelines section 15301, which covers minor alterations to existing public structures. The court concluded that the appellant did not demonstrate that the Streetscape Plan fell within any exceptions to the categorical exemptions. Additionally, the court held that the EIR’s analysis of growth-inducing impacts was adequate and that the City had ensured that mitigation measures would be implemented.The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed, and the City of Los Angeles was awarded costs on appeal. View "Westside Los Angeles Neighbors Network v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Bijan Boutiques, LLC (Bijan) appealed a summary judgment in favor of Rosamari Isong. Bijan sought to void the property distribution in the marital dissolution judgment between Isong and her former husband, Richard Milam Akubiro, under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA). Bijan argued that the judgment was fraudulent as it awarded Isong the couple’s only U.S. property, making it difficult to enforce a judgment Bijan had against Akubiro without incurring significant expenses to pursue foreign assets.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County ruled that Bijan’s complaint was barred by Family Code section 916, subdivision (a)(2), which protects property received in a marital dissolution from being liable for a spouse’s debt unless the debt was assigned to the receiving spouse. The court found that the marital dissolution judgment was not a product of a negotiated settlement but was adjudicated by the court, thus not subject to the UVTA.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court held that Family Code section 916 precludes Bijan from enforcing its judgment against the property awarded to Isong. The court distinguished this case from Mejia v. Reed, which allowed UVTA claims against marital settlement agreements, noting that the dissolution judgment here was court-adjudicated, not a private agreement. The court also rejected Bijan’s arguments that the judgment was obtained by fraud and that the Chino property should not have been subject to division, affirming that the property was presumed to be community property under Family Code section 2581.The appellate court concluded that Bijan could not satisfy its judgment against Akubiro by executing on the property awarded to Isong and affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Isong. View "Bijan Boutiques v. Isong" on Justia Law

The case involves the Old Creek Ranch Winery, owned by Holguin Family Ventures, LLC, and leased by OCRW, Inc. The Ventura County Board of Supervisors found that the appellants violated the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance by expanding the winery and wine-tasting area without a conditional use permit (CUP) and changing the principal use of the ranch from crop production to a wine tasting/event venue. The Board also denied their request for zoning clearance for a paved parking lot and electric vehicle charging stations.The trial court upheld the Board's decision, applying the substantial evidence standard of review. The court found that the appellants had converted the property’s principal use from crop and wine production to a commercial wine bar and event space. The court also denied appellants' motion to amend their complaint to add a new cause of action for declaratory relief and dismissed their remaining cause of action for inverse condemnation.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that the substantial evidence standard was appropriate and found that substantial evidence supported the Board's decision. The court also upheld the trial court's denial of the motion to amend the complaint, concluding that the proposed new cause of action was unnecessary and that the delay in filing the motion was unjustified. Additionally, the court ruled that the Outdoor Events Ordinance did not apply to the winery, as it was separately regulated under the Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance.The main holding is that the substantial evidence standard of review was correctly applied, and substantial evidence supports the Board's findings of zoning violations and the denial of the zoning clearance for the parking lot and charging stations. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend the complaint. The judgment was affirmed. View "Holguin Family Ventures v. County of Ventura" on Justia Law