Skip to main content

Tort Claims Against an Alter Ego May Be Considered an Action “On a Contract” for the Purposes of an Attorneys’ Fees Award under California Civil Code section 1717

By: Tony Carucci California Civil Code section 1717 entitles the prevailing party to attorneys’ fees “[i]n any action on a contract,” where the contract provides for an award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party, regardless of whether the prevailing party is the party specified in the contract or not. But what about an action […]

Arizona Governor Ducey’s Executive Order on Residential Eviction Actions

By:  Bob Henry As part of the State of Arizona’s response to the current public health crisis, on March 24, 2020, Arizona Governor Ducey issued Executive Order 2020-14, titled “Postponement of Eviction Actions.” A copy of the Executive Order is linked here:  https://azgovernor.gov/executive-orders Residential landlords considering taking any action against tenants, including evictions, should be aware […]

| 2 min read | Tagged:
BH
Partner

Short-Term Rental Legislation & Litigation On the Way!

The advent of the shared economy in the real estate context has provided homeowners and investors alike with expanded opportunities to generate revenue from the use of their real estate. Airbnb and VRBO are two of the most popular companies facilitating short-term rental availability. The rapid growth in this shared real estate economy has served […]

| 3 min read | Tagged: , , ,

CCP 998 Does Not Confer an Independent Right to Attorneys’ Fees

By: Tony Carucci A so-called “offer to compromise” under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. When making a 998 offer, parties may designate the plaintiff as the prevailing […]

What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

By: Tony Carucci In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs […]

Ten Years After Colorado’s Adverse Possession Amendment: a brief look backwards and forwards

In response to national outrage over an infamous adverse possession case in Boulder, Colorado, in which a lawyer and a judge intentionally took their neighbors’ undeveloped land through adverse possession, the Colorado legislature amended the state’s adverse possession statute (C.R.S. § 38-41-101) to make the claim significantly harder to prove.  It did this because it […]

LM
Former Associate

California Supreme Court Clarifies Deadline to File Anti-SLAPP Motions in Light of Amended Pleadings

By: Tony Carucci California’s “anti-SLAPP” (“SLAPP” is an acronym for strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute—codified at California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 et seq.—is the primary vehicle for defending against any action involving petitioning or free speech. The statute was designed to provide an early and fast summary judgment-like procedure to allow defendants […]

Withdrawal of an Admission in California May Shift Costs—Including Attorneys’ Fees—Incurred in Connection with the Withdrawal

By: Tony Carucci Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300, a court may permit a party to withdraw an admission made in response to a request for admission upon noticed motion. The court may only do so, however, “if it determines that the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and […]

| 3 min read | Tagged:

California Mediation Confidentiality May Apply to Third Party “Participants” Retained to Provide Analysis

By: Tony Carucci California Evidence Code section 1119 governs the general admissibility of oral and written communications generated during the mediation process. Section 1119(a) provides that “[n]o evidence of anything said or any admission made for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation . . . is admissible or subject […]

California Supreme Court Hands Victory to Private Property Owners Over Public Use

By:  Sean M. Sherlock In 1970 the California Supreme Court held that, under certain circumstances, private property owners impliedly dedicate their property to the public if they permit the public to use it. Gion v. City of Santa Cruz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 29.  This holding was controversial, and the next year the California Legislature enacted […]

| 4 min read | Tagged: , ,

Does Your 998 Offer to Compromise Include Attorneys’ Fees and Costs?

By: Anthony J. Carucci In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to […]

| 7 min read | Tagged: ,

Arizona Supreme Court Holds a Credit Bid at a Trustee’s Sale Should Not be Credited to a Title Insurer Under a Standard Lender’s Title Policy To the Extent the Bid Exceeds the Collateral’s Fair Market Value

By:  Richard H. Herold The Arizona Supreme Court recently addressed what impact, if any, a lender’s credit bid at an Arizona trustee’s sale has on an insurer’s liability under Sections 2, 7 and 9 of the standard’s lender’s title policy (“Policy”), holding in Equity Income Partners, LP v. Chicago Title Insurance Company, 241 Ariz. 334, […]

| 3 min read | Tagged: , ,
RH
Former Partner

Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California

By: Anthony J. Carucci Aside from general statutory prohibitions on lender discrimination, there are certain circumstances under California law in which lenders may be held liable for credit-related actions, such as negotiating or denying credit. See generally 11 Cal. Real Est. § 35:3 (explaining that the business of lending money is subject to the Unruh […]

Applying New California Rules to Your Real Estate Litigation Practice

By: Lyndsey Torp Several new California procedural rules went into effect on January 1, 2016. While we are several months into the new year, litigators may need a reminder of these new rules.  The list below summarizes several of the notable new rules. Pleading Stage New California Code of Procedure section 430.41(a)(2) mandates that the parties […]

LT
Former Senior Attorney

Property Taxes: A Shopping Center May Not Always be a Shopping Center

By:  Rick Herold, Craig McPike & Ben Reeves In the world of real property taxes, Valuation + Classification = Assessed Valuation.  Sounds simple, right?  The County Assessor determines the first factor, valuation (subject to certain guidelines under applicable Arizona law).  The Arizona State Legislature determines the second factor, the property’s legal classification and corresponding assessment […]

| 3 min read | Tagged: , , , , ,
RH
Former Partner

Inverse Condemnation: When is Your Claim Precluded by the Arizona Statute of Limitations?

By:  Richard Herold An inverse condemnation of a landowner’s property can occur when a governmental entity: (1) physically takes the property without compensation; or (2) passes a new law that has a serious impact on the value and/or utility of the property.  At times, the taking may be obvious, for example, if the governmental entity […]

| 2 min read | Tagged:
RH
Former Partner

Easements Made Easier: Building Pipelines with the Power of Eminent Domain Under the Natural Gas Act

By: Richard H. Herold Any person or entity seeking to construct a natural gas pipeline and successful in obtaining a certificate of convenience and necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may exercise the power of eminent domain to obtain easements across private property when those easements are necessary and cannot be obtained consensually (by contract) from […]

| 2 min read | Tagged: , , , ,
RH
Former Partner

Sellers Cannot Look to the Appraiser When Lenders Pull the Plug on a Prospective House Flip

By:  Eric Spencer An outgrowth of Arizona’s housing downturn in recent years has been the proliferation of would-be real estate investors who purchase, renovate and flip residential properties.   On the other hand, in part to prevent the next downturn from occurring, lenders have tightened borrowing requirements and balked at financing any purchase of a “flipped” […]

ES

Bidding on State Land Trust Leases: Even the Top Revenue-Generating Bids Must be Balanced Against Qualitative “Best Use” Factors Designed to Protect the Land

By:  Richard H. Herold The Court of Appeals recently held that that the Commissioner of the State Land Trust Department properly balanced Wildearth Guardians, Inc.’s higher revenue-generating bid against “best use” qualitative factors set forth in the Arizona Administrative Code.  As a result, the appellate court affirmed the Commissioner’s decision to award a 10-year grazing […]

| 3 min read | Tagged: ,
RH
Former Partner

Suing a Licensed Real Estate Professional May Require You to Complete and Turn In Your Homework.

By: Cory L. Braddock A lawyer must have a good faith belief, after reasonable inquiry, that a lawsuit he files is grounded in fact and warranted by existing law.  Ariz. R. Civ. P. 11.  In other words, lawyers violate Arizona’s rules of civil procedure when they file frivolous lawsuits.  In Arizona, the legislature has, at […]

| 4 min read | Tagged: , ,
CB

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Latest Attempt to Differentiate a Fair Quid Pro Quo in the Developer’s Permitting Process From an Unconstitutional Taking

By:  Rick Herold Introduction The U.S. Supreme Court has issued an important decision in an attempt to add clarity and help government land use planners understand the difference between reasonable requests and unreasonable demands rising to the level of unconstitutional takings in the permitting process.  Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 2013 WL […]

RH
Former Partner

Does an Appraiser Owe a Duty of Care to Non-Client Third Parties? It Depends.

By: Andy Stone Under what circumstances do appraisers owe a duty of care to third parties sufficient to give rise to liability for negligent misrepresentation claims was examined (again) by the Arizona Court of Appeals in late 2012.  See Belen Loan Investors, LLC v. Bradley, 296 P.3d 984, 650 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 8 (App. 2012).  […]

AS
Former Associate