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

Posted on June 7, 2019 by acarucci

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 party and provide that the plaintiff may seek attorneys’ fees allowed by law, or expressly include the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees within the amount of the offer. But does an offer that simply provides that the plaintiff may seek attorneys’ fees “allowed by law” provide the plaintiff with an independent right to attorneys’ fees?… Read More »

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

Share this Article:

Colorado Court of Appeals clarifies that a finding of irreparable harm is not required to enter a permanent injunction to enforce an easement

Posted on May 7, 2019 by Luke Mecklenburg

On March 21, 2019, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Rinker v. Colina-Lee, holding for the first time that the “irreparable harm” element typically required to grant a permanent injunction is not needed for injunctions issued to enforce easements. 2019 COA 45. While the facts underlying the case are long and somewhat convoluted, for the purposes of the court’s “irreparable harm” holding, the case involves two real property owners along a private road governed by an association agreement. Id., ¶¶ 12-14. Uphill property alterations by the association and other members caused debris to accumulate on Mr.… Read More »

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

Share this Article:

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

Posted on September 10, 2018 by Luke Mecklenburg

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:

AZRE Article Discusses Social Media Resources for the Industry

Posted on September 30, 2013 by Matthew Fischer

By:  Matthew P. Fischer

In the most recent issue of the magazine AZRE: Arizona Commercial Real Estate (September October 2013), reporter and former editor Peter Madrid wrote on social media coverage of the Arizona commercial real estate industry in his article, “The Message Is the Medium:  Commercial real estate practice groups embracing social media as a source and outlet of gathering disseminating relevant news.”  Among the social media resources mentioned, Mr. Madrid discusses the Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog.  You can read the article online by clicking the hyperlinked title.  Keep up the great work AZRE!… Read More »

Author: Matthew Fischer | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , ,

Share this Article:

Statutory Caveat Emptor Survives…or Does It?

Posted on April 29, 2013 by Matthew Fischer

By:  Matthew P. Fischer

Arizona has codified the concept of caveat emptor (i.e., buyer beware) for three particular circumstances.  Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2156, real property sellers are not obligated to disclose:  (1) deaths or felonies that have occurred on the premises; (2) prior occupancy by someone with a non-communicable disease; and (3) nearby sex offender residents.  The constitutionality of § 32-2156 was recently challenged in Lerner v. DMB Realty, et al., 294 P.3d 135 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2012), specifically with respect to subsection three (click on the case name for the full opinion of the court). … Read More »

Author: Matthew Fischer | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , , , ,

Share this Article:

Introducing the Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog

Posted on April 25, 2013 by Ben Reeves

The Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Group is proud to announce the launch of its new blog.  After decades of handling commercial disputes and trials involving real estate, the Group was officially formed in 2008.  The firm’s real estate litigation and trial attorneys formed the Group to maximize expertise, efficiency and results for the benefit of the firm’s clients.

Through the launch of its blog, the Group is excited about the opportunity to share its collective insight on timely issues affecting real estate litigation.   Each blog post will be written by one or more of the attorneys of the Group, with the aim of providing a forum for the timely discussion and analysis of issues impacting real estate litigation.… Read More »

Author: Ben Reeves | Leave a comment Tagged , ,

Share this Article: