-CERCLA-
An entity may qualify as an arranger for purposes of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act when it takes intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance. Entity’s knowledge of continuing spills and leaks was insufficient grounds for concluding that it "arranged for" disposal of those hazardous materials. District court reasonably apportioned landowner’s share of site remediation costs based on percentage of total area of facility that was owned, duration of a tenant’s agricultural chemical business divided by lease term, and court’s determination that only two polluting chemicals spilled on leased parcel required remediation and that those chemicals were responsible for roughly two-thirds of the remediable site contamination.
     Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States - filed May 4, 2009
     Cite as 07-1601
     Full text

Back to Top

-Community Property-
Husband transmuted his separate real properties into community property by way of a written agreement executed in 2002 which stated that: "[a]ll property, real and personal, of [husband and wife], whether title thereto is held in the names of one or the other of the parties or both of the parties as joint tenants or otherwise, is the community property of the parties hereto, each having a present, existing, and equal interest therein," and "[a]ll property, real and personal, held in the name of Husband having its origin in his separate property no matter how received and/or earned, is hereby converted to community property of Husband and Wife, and shall thereafter be the community property of the parties for estate planning hereto, each having a present, existing, and equal interest therein"; it was irrelevant that the agreement was executed along with a trust and will as part of a single "estate planning" strategy, and other documents did not have any bearing on whether the agreement contained an express, unequivocal declaration of transmutation. Provision in agreement providing that it was not intended to "make any transfer of property between the parties" did not create ambiguity of husband's intent to transmute his previously separate property, because such an interpretation would violate basic principles of contract interpretation by undoing the other provisions. Trial court erred in finding husband was unduly influenced, based on lack of evidence in the record, and trial court wrongly interpreted agreement to include ambiguity where husband signed a declaration stating he read and understood agreement's terms, agreement was only five pages long, and husband was represented by counsel.
     In re Marriage of Lund - filed May 21, 2009, Fourth District, Div. Three
     Cite as 2009 SOS 2858
     Full text

Back to Top

-Construction Law-
A surety that issued a payment and performance bond to a contractor and subcontractor on the same construction project could not allocate the loss from the subcontractor’s failure to pay a materials supplier between the bonds. As a surety’s liability is commensurate with that of a principal, trial court erred in granting contractual award of attorney fees to obligee against principal only; surety and principal were jointly and severally liable for such an award.
     First National Insurance Company v. Cam Painting, Inc. - filed May 15, 2009, Second District, Div. Five
     Cite as 2009 SOS 2760
     Full text

Back to Top

-Eminent Domain-
A governmental entity or official may receive immunity for petitioning involved in an eminent domain proceeding. Agents of that litigation may benefit from that immunity as well. Where litigation was protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine--which provides that those who petition any department of the government for redress are generally immune from statutory liability for their petitioning conduct--alleged misconduct in discovery communications surrounding that litigation and the trial advocacy of that litigation was likewise protected. District court erred in holding that an exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine for sham litigation did not apply where plaintiff alleged that intentional misrepresentations had been made to the district court and fraud upon the district court through the suppression of evidence. District court did not err in finding California’s litigation privilege barred plaintiff’s state claims where such claims were based on misconduct reasonably related to the eminent domain proceeding.
     Kearney v. Foley & Lardner, LLP - filed May 12, 2009
     Cite as 07-55566
     Full text

Back to Top

-Environmental Law-
An entity may qualify as an arranger for purposes of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act when it takes intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance. Entity’s knowledge of continuing spills and leaks was insufficient grounds for concluding that it "arranged for" disposal of those hazardous materials. District court reasonably apportioned landowner’s share of site remediation costs based on percentage of total area of facility that was owned, duration of a tenant’s agricultural chemical business divided by lease term, and court’s determination that only two polluting chemicals spilled on leased parcel required remediation and that those chemicals were responsible for roughly two-thirds of the remediable site contamination.
     Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States - filed January 28, 2009, ordered published February 23, 2009, Third District
     Cite as 07-1601
     Full text

Back to Top

-Environmental Law-
California Coastal Commission did not abuse its discretion or act in excess of its jurisdiction in granting a coastal development permit based on a finding that the view over applicant’s roof was not a significant public view that must be protected. Legislature did not intend "that permits be denied for all projects which infringe in any way, no matter how minimal, on any view, no matter how limited, for anyone, from any vantage point, no matter the proximity of unlimited and expansive views."
     Farr v. California Coastal Commission (Doyle) - filed April 9, 2009, publication ordered May 19, 2009, Second District, Div. Five
     Cite as 2009 SOS 2768
     Full text

Back to Top

-Homeowners Associations-
Where residential property owners entered into arrangement with family members allowing them to live at property and pay all costs, and purported to assign causes of action against developers to enforce rights in property to family members, trial court properly determined that family members lacked standing to assert causes of action because owners were real parties in interest and causes of action were incidents of ownership that were not assignable. Trial court did not err in awarding attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code Sec. 1354(c) where plaintiffs' action to enforce governing documents was unsuccessful due to lack of standing.
     Martin v. Bridgeport Community Association, Inc. - filed April 7, 2009, publication ordered May 6, 2009, Second District, Div. Seven
     Cite as 2009 SOS 2603 
     Full text

Back to Top

-Land Use-
California Coastal Commission did not abuse its discretion or act in excess of its jurisdiction in granting a coastal development permit based on a finding that the view over applicant’s roof was not a significant public view that must be protected. Legislature did not intend "that permits be denied for all projects which infringe in any way, no matter how minimal, on any view, no matter how limited, for anyone, from any vantage point, no matter the proximity of unlimited and expansive views."
     Farr v. California Coastal Commission (Doyle) - filed April 9, 2009, publication ordered May 19, 2009, Second District, Div. Five.
     Cite as 2009 SOS 2768
     Full text

Back to Top

-Land Use-
City board of supervisors exceeded its jurisdiction in adopting a resolution initiating the process of designating as a landmark a church building--which was no longer used as a place of worship and which church had agreed to sell for demolition and construction of condominiums--because state law exempts church property from local regulation of landmarks.
     The California-Nevada Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church v. City and County of San Francisco - filed May 20, 2009, First District, Div. Three
     Cite as 2009 SOS 2825
     Full text

Back to Top

-Landlord and Tenant-
Substantial evidence supported trial court’s conclusion that a liquidated damages provision in a lease was not an unenforceable penalty because such clause was presumptively enforceable, and lessor had the burden to demonstrate otherwise. Although lessor introduced evidence that may have given rise to an inference that the clause was arbitrary, that evidence was not conclusive and was countered by landlord’s evidence.
     El Centro Mall, LLC v. Payless ShoeSource, Inc. - filed April 21, 2009, publication ordered May 21, 2009, Fourth District, Div. Three
     Cite as 2009 SOS 2830
     Full text

Back to Top

-Park Dedication-
Public Resources Code permits a park district to acquire land without formally dedicating it for park or open space purposes and hold such land in a "land bank" until district decides to dedicate such property in perpetuity for park purposes. All real property is not deemed automatically dedicated for park purposes immediately upon acquisition.
     Ste. Marie v. Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District (Mt. San Jacinto Community College District) - filed May 14, 2009
     Cite as 2009 SOS 2701
     Full text

Back to Top

-Premises Liability-
Utility company did not willfully or maliciously fail to guard or warn of a dangerous condition posed to a teenager who climbed its transmission tower which was located in an isolated area and was equipped with anti-climbing devices, absent any evidence of prior accidents of climb attempts, where utility company installed anti-climbing devices on tower; evidence that some devices were installed incorrectly was not enough to rise to level of willful or malicious conduct.
     Manuel v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. - filed April 20, 2009, publication ordered May 5, 2009, First District, Div. Two
     Cite as 2009 SOS 2581
     Full text

Back to Top

-Purchase and Sale Agreements-
Where trial court noted that primary issue before it was whether plaintiff was in default of agreements for sale of real property when plaintiff gave notice of termination and that secondary issue was proper disposition of the deposit, and court found that plaintiff did not act in bad faith or engage in any financial impropriety or deceptive or sharp practices and had "in every respect acted in good faith," court abused its discretion by deciding there was no prevailing party for purposes of awarding attorney's fees under Civil Code Sec. 1717(b) because record clearly revealed that one party obtained greater relief.
     Silver Creek, LLC v. Blackrock Realty Advisors, Inc. - filed May 20, 2009, Fourth District, Div. One
     Cite as 2009 SOS 2783
     Full text

Back to Top

-Real Property Litigation-
A party to a pending arbitration cannot record a notice of pendency of action without first filing a civil action in superior court.
     Manhattan Loft, LLC v. Mercury Liquors, Inc. - filed May 6, 2009, Second District, Div. Two
     Cite as 2009 SOS 2567
     Full text

Back to Top

-Real Property Litigation-
Where residential property owners entered into arrangement with family members allowing them to live at property and pay all costs, and purported to assign causes of action against developers to enforce rights in property to family members, trial court properly determined that family members lacked standing to assert causes of action because owners were real parties in interest and causes of action were incidents of ownership that were not assignable. Trial court did not err in awarding attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code Sec. 1354(c) where plaintiffs' action to enforce governing documents was unsuccessful due to lack of standing.
     Martin v. Bridgeport Community Association, Inc. - filed April 7, 2009, publication ordered May 6, 2009, Second District, Div. Seven
     Cite as 2009 SOS 2603
     Full text

Back to Top

-Real Property Litigation-
A governmental entity or official may receive immunity for petitioning involved in an eminent domain proceeding. Agents of that litigation may benefit from that immunity as well. Where litigation was protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine--which provides that those who petition any department of the government for redress are generally immune from statutory liability for their petitioning conduct--alleged misconduct in discovery communications surrounding that litigation and the trial advocacy of that litigation was likewise protected. District court erred in holding that an exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine for sham litigation did not apply where plaintiff alleged that intentional misrepresentations had been made to the district court and fraud upon the district court through the suppression of evidence. District court did not err in finding California's litigation privilege barred plaintiff's state claims where such claims were based on misconduct reasonably related to the eminent domain proceeding.
     Kearney v. Foley & Lardner, LLP - - filed May 12, 2009
     Cite as 07-55566
     Full text

Back to Top

-Real Property Taxation-
State constitution’s 45-day notice requirement for hearing on creation of special assessment district was satisfied where hearing was held 45 days after notices were mailed; date of mailing is not included in computation, but day of hearing is. Constitutional ban on imposition of an assessment "which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel" is not violated by imposing assessments on some parcels--such as those owned by nonprofit entities or with commercial uses--that are less than the proportional special benefit conferred. City’s use of front footage rather than total street length as a factor in calculating the amount to be assessed for special business district operations did not cause the assessment on any parcel to exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel, where there was a reasonable relationship between each parcel’s amount of front footage and the benefits it would receive from business improvement district. Fact that assessments, in addition to conferring special benefits on property owners, will create general benefits for community--such as making the area within a business improvement district safer and cleaner--does not mean that value of those general benefits must be deducted from value of the special benefits in determining the constitutional maximum that may be assessed on property owners.
     Dahms v. Downtown Pomona Property - filed May 12, 2009, Second District, Div. One
     Cite as 2009 SOS 2677
     Full text

Back to Top

Reader Reactions
So - What do you think of the Real Property News?  Please send us your comments and suggestions. This is your newsletter.