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 believed “there were insufficient ‘obstacles’ to establishing a claim for adverse possession under the existing law.”[1]  Effective July 1, 2008, the amendment created a heightened burden of proof, additional element requirements, and the possibility of a losing defendant recovering money from successful plaintiffs for the value of the land they took and the taxes the defendant had paid on that land.… Read More »

Author: Luke Mecklenburg | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , , , ,

Share this Article:

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 Civil Code section 1009 limiting the public’s ability to permanently use private property through an implied dedication.

In the 40-plus years since then, the lower courts have wrestled with the issue of whether the statute limiting implied dedication applies only to recreational uses by the public, or also to nonrecreational uses.… Read More »

Author: Sean M. Sherlock | Leave a comment Tagged , ,

Share this Article:

Washington Answers the Question of Whether Title Companies Owe a Duty of Care to Third Parties…

By: Ben Reeves

Last year (as we blogged about here and wrote a more in depth Law360 article about here), the Ninth Circuit certified to the Washington Supreme Court the question of whether title companies owe a duty of care to third parties when they record legal instruments. We finally have an answer…

“We answer the certified question no and hold that title companies do not owe a duty of care to third parties in the recording of legal instruments. Such a duty is contrary to Washington’s policy and precedent, and other duty of care considerations.”

Centurion Properties III, LLC v.Read More »

Author: Ben Reeves | Leave a comment Tagged , , , ,

Share this Article:

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 ratio (i.e., tax rate).  Given the wide disparity in assessment ratios, classification can be a major issue for taxpayers.

Recently, the Court of Appeals confirmed that a shopping center for valuation purposes may not be a shopping center for classification purposes.  Scottsdale/101 Associates LLC v.Read More »

Author: Richard Herold | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , ,

Share this Article:

It just got a little bit easier to enforce judgment liens

By:  Ben Reeves

Last year, we posted It just got a little bit harder to enforce judgment liens, which analyzed a Court of Appeals decision that invalidated a judgment lien against third-party purchasers due to the judgment creditors’ failure to record an information statement along with the judgment.  Lewis v. Debord, 236 Ariz. 57, 335 P.3d 1136 (Ct. App. 2014).  In that case, even though the Court of Appeals found that the judgment lien remained valid, the opinion concluded that the failure to record the information statement affected the “priority” of the judgment lien and rendered the third-party purchasers’ ownership interest superior to the judgment creditors’ lien interest. … Read More »

Author: Ben Reeves | Leave a comment Tagged , ,

Share this Article:

Does a title company owe a duty of care to third parties in the recording of legal instruments?

By: Ben Reeves

This is precisely the question that the Ninth Circuit recently certified to the Washington Supreme Court in Centurion Properties III, LLC v. Chicago Title Ins. Co.

Facts of the Case

In this case, Centurion Properties III, LLC (the “Borrower”) purchased a tract of real property in Washington with a loan from General Electric Capital Corporation (the “Senior Lender”), and secured the loan with a first position lien against the property. The loan documents and lien instruments specifically prohibited further encumbrance of the property without the Senior Lender’s prior written consent. Chicago Title served as the escrow agent, closing agent, and the title insurer for this transaction.… Read More »

Author: Ben Reeves | Leave a comment Tagged , , ,

Share this Article:

Vendees’ Liens—Construction Lenders Beware!

By:  David A. Sprentall

A recent Arizona Court of Appeals decision highlights a lien priority risk for secured construction lenders when the financed project fails. The problem—known as a “vendee lien”—is most likely to arise when up-front deposits are paid by buyers of units in condominiums or similar projects.

The case, Rigoli v. 44 Monroe Marketing, LLC, involved a construction loan made by Corus Bank in 2006 for the development of the 44 West Monroe condominium tower in downtown Phoenix. As a condition to the loan, the developer was required to have presales of at least 100 units and earnest money deposits of approximately $4.5 million.… Read More »

Author: Ben Reeves | Leave a comment Tagged , , ,

Share this Article:

New California Case Illustrates Peril of Full Credit Bid

By: Sean M. Sherlock

In a new California case, a lender that made a full credit bid at a foreclosure sale lost its right as mortgagee under a lender’s insurance policy for damage to the property that occurred prior to foreclosure. This was so even though the lender held multiple deeds of trust, and foreclosed on only one of them. The case provides valuable guidance in devising a foreclosure bidding strategy.

In Najah v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___, 2014 WL 4827882 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., Sep. 30, 2014), plaintiff (lender) sued defendant (insurer) for failing to pay a claim for property damage that occurred prior to plaintiff’s foreclosure on the property.… Read More »

Author: Sean M. Sherlock | Leave a comment Tagged , , ,

Share this Article:

Lender’s Title Insurance: When Should Courts Measure the Fair Market Value of Property Affected by a Title Defect?*

By:  Andy Stone

Title insurance is designed to pay for damages caused by any defects to title that the title company should have discovered but did not.  Lender’s title insurance protects lenders who lose money due to a title defect, which is distinguished from an owner’s policy that protects the property owners.  How to calculate a lender’s damages under a title insurance policy is an issue that courts have struggled to address in a consistent manner.  Generally, courts are in agreement about when a lender suffers damages, which occurs after the borrower defaults and the security for the mortgage proves inadequate. … Read More »

Author: Andy Stone | Leave a comment Tagged , ,

Share this Article: