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:

Wait, You Want An HOA?! Restricting Implied Common-Interest Communities

By: Neal McConomy

While the butt of many jokes and a thorn in the side of some property owners, homeowners associations (“HOAs”) serve the vital function of collecting and disbursing funds to care for and maintain common areas of residential developments. Without HOAs, neighborhood open spaces, parks, and other amenities risk falling into disrepair through a type of tragedy of the commons, wherein residents use such amenities but refuse to subsidize care and maintenance for these common areas believing someone else will pony-up the funds. HOAs, when properly organized and managed, avoid this problem by ensuring everyone pays their fair shares for the common areas.… Read More »

Author: nmcconomy | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Share this Article:

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 and cross-defendants to file a motion to dismiss either an entire complaint, specific causes of action, or even just portions of a cause of action, and to require the plaintiff to respond before conducting discovery. By facilitating an early challenge to a plaintiff or cross-complainant’s claims, the anti-SLAPP statute allows the responding party to avoid the costs and delay that chill the exercise of constitutionally protected rights.… Read More »

Author: acarucci | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , ,

Share this Article:

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 Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq., the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 12900 et seq., the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq.Read More »

Author: acarucci | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , ,

Share this Article:

California’s One-Action Rule May Apply to Federal Lenders

By: Anthony J. Carucci

California’s one-action rule provides that “[t]here can be but one form of action for the recovery of any debt or the enforcement of any right secured by mortgage upon real property or an estate for years therein . . . .” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 726(a). In other words, the one-action rule prescribes that the only process for recovery of a debt secured by a mortgage or deed of trust is to foreclose on the lien. The rule aims to prevent a multiplicity of actions and vexatious litigation, and to force a beneficiary to look to all of the security as the primary fund for payment of a debt before looking to the trustor’s other assets.… Read More »

Author: acarucci | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Share this Article:

Eminent Domain: Be Careful What You Ask For

By:  Richard Herold and Patrick Paul

The condemnation[1] of property for public works may not always be as clean and easy as the government would like.  Although local governments are often critical players in the cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated properties, contaminated property can: (1) trigger disclosure requirements; (2) lead to environmental liability, for example, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA” or “Superfund”) (42 U.S.C. §9601, et seq.) or an analogous state statute;[2] and/or (3) impact the ultimate valuation of the property.

Local governments can be liable under CERCLA as any one of the following:

  • A current owner or operator of the contaminated property
  • An owner or operator of the property at the time of contamination
  • A party who arranged for the disposal of contamination
  • One who transported the hazardous substances to the property

Condemning authorities can, however, avail of Superfund’s bona fide prospective purchaser defense by engaging in all appropriate inquiry in advance of condemnation and/or taking reasonable post condemnation steps with respect to any known or discovered contamination.… Read More »

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

Share this Article:

Successful Laches Defense Becoming Commonplace in Colorado

By: Neal McConomy

Boiler plate language in responsive pleadings often includes “Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of laches” (or “The doctrine of laches bars Plaintiff’s claims” if you prefer the active voice).  However, litigation of a laches defense is fairly rare, and a defendant successfully arguing a laches defense is something of a legal Haley’s Comet, only less reliable. Often, courts refuse to consider a laches defense if a statute of limitations applies. See e.g., Ivani Contracting Corp. v. City of New York, 103 F.3d 257 (2d Cir. 1997); and Lyons P’ship v. Morris Costumes, Inc., 243 F.3d 789 (4th Cir.… Read More »

Author: nmcconomy | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , , ,

Share this Article:

A Purchaser Who Doesn’t Inquire May Be Teeing Up For Failure

 

By: Erica Stutman

Picture this:  While on the hunt for new development opportunities, you stumble across a golf course in the middle of a high-end community, and you think this would be the perfect spot for more houses, or a retail center, or a movie theater, or …oh, the possibilities are endless!  Better yet, you learn you can buy it for a bargain. Before closing the deal, you review the property’s recorded chain of title and find nothing requiring the property to be used as a golf course. You sign the closing papers and start planning your perfect new development.… Read More »

Author: Erica Stutman | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , , , ,

Share this Article:

Governmental Power and Property Lines

By: Neal McConomy

On May 27, 2014, the Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Town of Dillon v. Yacht Club Condos. Home Owners Ass’n, 2014 CO 37.  Overturning the rulings of both the trial court and the Colorado Court of Appeals, the Colorado Supreme Court reaffirmed the long-standing deference Colorado law shows to state legislative bodies exerting their police powers.  This opinion reminds Colorado property owners that property rights and interests end at the property line and no one should rely on the ability to use public land around their property in the future.

Between 1965 and 1967, a developer constructed the Yacht Club Condominiums in Dillon, Colorado, consisting of three buildings and fifty condominium units. … Read More »

Author: nmcconomy | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Share this Article:

Legal Pot Leads to Possible Nuisance Suits, but Viability is Unlikely

By: Neal McConomy

Almost four months into Colorado’s legalization of recreational marijuana for adults aged twenty-one and over, the weather is warming, windows are opening, and outdoor spaces are getting more use.  All the while, a segment of the Colorado population, especially in the City and County of Denver (“Denver”), is exercising its new-found legal right to use marijuana.[1]  A pungent plant known for its skunk-like aroma, marijuana, accompanied by its distinct scent, is poised to waft onto properties across Colorado that may find the odor less than euphoric.[2]  The issue becomes whether these Denver residents have a legal avenue to control the once contraband odors from invading their living spaces, be it an adjacent apartment, backyard, or living room.… Read More »

Author: nmcconomy | 1 Comment Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Share this Article:

A Compilation and Summary of Real Estate Related Legislation Enacted by the 51st Arizona Legislature

On Friday June 14, 2013, at 12:59 a.m., on the 152nd day of the regular legislative session, the 51st Arizona Legislature adjourned sine die, or “without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing.”  Generally, except as otherwise noted in the act itself, legislation in Arizona is not effective until 90 days after the regular session adjourns sine die.  Accordingly, on Friday, September 13, 2013, the vast majority of legislation enacted by the Arizona Legislature in the 2013 legislative session went into effect.

Although real estate related bills certainly did not dominate the legislative landscape this past session, they still held their own. … Read More »

Author: Adam Lang | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Share this Article:

Protecting Your Project From Litigation: Limited Liability Company vs. Partnership

If you have multiple investors/owners, one of the benefits of using a Limited Liability Company (LLC) to own real property rather than using a partnership is that the LLC offers better protection of the real property from creditors of any individual part-owner (LLC member or partner).  A judgment creditor of an LLC member is limited to getting a charging order against the member’s interest in the LLC.  The charging order gives the judgment creditor the rights of an assignee of the member’s interest.  This assignee position simply gives the judgment creditor the “passive” right to receive the distributions from the LLC (if any) that would otherwise go to the LLC member. … Read More »

Author: Kevin Parker | Leave a comment Tagged , ,

Share this Article: