Volume I, No. 11  Join the Real Property Section Contact Us

September 2006

Recent Cases

-Community Property-
-Condominiums-
-Construction Law-
-Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions-
-Deeds of Trust-
-Easements-
-Environmental Law-
-Escrow-
-Inverse Condemnation-
-Land Use-
-Property Taxation-
-Rent Control-

Upcoming Events


- Community Property -
Where appellate court affirmed finding that writing constituted transmutation of husband's property to wife but remanded case saying husband was precluded from presenting evidence to the effect that he was under duress when he signed the writing, so the matter must be remanded to give him an opportunity to present his evidence and to make his arguments concerning the enforceability of the otherwise valid transmutation, husband was not limited on remand to presenting evidence of duress, but could present any evidence regarding enforceability of the transmutation. Evidence supported finding that wife did not overcome presumption that transmutation of property was gained through undue influence, and supported finding that writing was made under duress where evidence showed that wife threatened husband with divorce and the obstruction of his relationship with their children if he did not prepare the writing of transmutation, harangued and berated husband during the marriage in an effort to force him to modify the parties' prenuptial agreement to provide more security for her, which berating included several incidents where wife physically struck husband, and wife screamed at husband for at least 45 minutes immediately preceding his writing the transmutation, which screaming included threats of divorce and obstructing husband's relationship with the minor children if he did not make the writing, husband reasonably believed wife's threats, and that she intended to follow through with her threats. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing testimony in court trial of wife's former attorney regarding public incident for the purpose of impeaching wife's assertion that she had no temper. Court did not abuse discretion in admitting transcript of tape recording—made by husband's answering machine when son called him, but failed to hang up the phone--on which wife was heard swearing at the children, telling son he could not talk to his father, threatened not to let the daughter go to her father's house the next day, and purportedly showed that wife was yelling at them, for the limited purpose of impeaching wife's testimony that she never yelled at the children; never used profanities when addressing the children; and never interfered with their seeing their father. Even if admission of stipulation that wife hit husband in front of children constituted error, it was not reversible error where husband testified that wife struck him several times. A trial court need not discuss each question listed in a party's request for a statement of decision; all that is required is an explanation of the factual and legal basis of the court's decision regarding the principal controverted issues at trial as were listed in the request.
     In re Marriage of Balcof - filed August 15, 2006, Fourth District, Div. Three
     Cite as 2006 SOS 4248
     Full text

- Condominiums-
Insurer under an occurrence-based commercial general liability policy cannot avoid providing a defense to the insured condominium complex developer in a construction defect action by a condominium homeowners association solely because the homeowners association did not exist or did not own the damaged property during the policy period; critical question is when the property damage occurred, not when the homeowners association came into existence.
     Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Spectrum Community Association - filed July 31, 2006, Fourth District, Div. Three
     Cite as 2006 SOS 4040
     Full text

-Condominiums-
Declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions whereby owners converted form of ownership of building in which they lived from a stock cooperative to a condominium, with each unit owner casting a number of votes in proportion to number of shares said owner had in cooperative, and with common area and other assessments being similarly apportioned, did not violate state common interest development, unfair business practices, or nonprofit corporation laws.
     Cebular v. Cooper Arms Homeowners Association - filed August 21, 2006, Second District, Div. Five
     Cite as 2006 SOS 4418
     Full text

Back to Top

-Construction Law-
Insurer under an occurrence-based commercial general liability policy cannot avoid providing a defense to the insured condominium complex developer in a construction defect action by a condominium homeowners association solely because the homeowners association did not exist or did not own the damaged property during the policy period; critical question is when the property damage occurred, not when the homeowners association came into existence.
     Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Spectrum Community Association - filed July 31, 2006, Fourth District, Div. Three
     Cite as 2006 SOS 4040
      Full text

-Construction Law-
Where developer and contractor were jointly and severally liable to homeowners association for all construction defects for which subcontractors--whose insurer became insolvent--were responsible, and suit against developer and contractor was resolved by a settlement in which those defendants paid homeowners association an amount that exhausted their primary commercial general liability coverage and included a contribution from their excess insurance carrier that did not exhaust the excess insurance limits, the coverage provided by the unexhausted excess coverage policy was available to satisfy homeowners association's claim, so there was no covered claim within meaning of statute obligating California Insurance Guarantee Association to pay such claims.
     Parkwoods Community Association v. California Insurance Guarantee Association - filed August 7, 2006, First District, Div. Three
     Cite as 2006 SOS 4165
      Full text

-Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions-
Declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions whereby owners converted form of ownership of building in which they lived from a stock cooperative to a condominium, with each unit owner casting a number of votes in proportion to number of shares said owner had in cooperative, and with common area and other assessments being similarly apportioned, did not violate state common interest development, unfair business practices, or nonprofit corporation laws.
     Cebular v. Cooper Arms Homeowners Association - filed August 21, 2006, Second District, Div. Five
     Cite as 2006 SOS 4418
      Full text

Back to Top

-Deeds of Trust-
Civil Code Sec. 2941, which establishes duties of beneficiary and trustee with respect to reconveyance of a deed of trust after secured obligation is satisfied, imposes no obligations on escrow holder to record trustee’s deed of reconveyance. Where individual sued escrow holder for failing to record a request for reconveyance of a deed of trust on his real property that secured a promissory note, trial court properly granted nonsuit in favor of escrow holder on basis that individual was not a party to escrow or escrow instructions whereby he claimed escrow holder owed him duty.
     Markowitz v. Fidelity National Title Company - filed May 31, 2006, publication ordered August 30, 2006, Second District, Div. Four
     Cite as 2006 SOS 4760
      Full text

-Easements-
Where, after timely filing notice of appeal, defendant filed an amended notice of appeal clearly communicating intent that postjudgment order on litigation expenses be included as an issue on appeal, plaintiff cannot reasonably contend it was misled or prejudiced as to defendant’s intent to appeal postjudgment order such that appeal must be dismissed in whole or in part. Where defendant public utility district had granted easement to plaintiff at time of purchasing several acres of its land, and agreement--granting plaintiff a 60-foot easement over existing road on west side of parcel being conveyed--was ambiguous as to whether scope of easement was limited to plaintiff’s personal ingress and egress or extended to permit access to a subdivision plaintiff sought to develop, trial court erred by failing to strictly interpret access easement in favor of defendant pursuant to Civil Code Sec. 1069, which requires every grant by a public body to be interpreted in favor of grantor if there is an ambiguity in grant, irrespective of extrinsic evidence of parties’ intent. Where plaintiff sued defendant for inverse condemnation/breach of contract for refusing to grant subdivision access easement, error prejudicially affected jury’s verdict on plaintiff’s inverse condemnation/breach of contract claim where jury could have found defendant did not breach parties’ agreement because easement for subdivision was much broader than personal easement defendant had agreed to convey.
     Trial court on remand must make new determination as to defendant’s liability for inverse condemnation and must grant retrial to determine whether defendant’s refusal to grant access easement constituted breach of contract. If jury on remand were to find defendant breached agreement, issue regarding damages would be whether easement would have enabled plaintiff to develop southerly portion of its property, even though easement was limited in scope to personal ingress and egress. Trial court did err in finding that after existing road referred to in agreement was obliterated by expansion of defendant’s reservoir, parties impliedly consented to relocate easement to newer road immediately to west of expanded reservoir, where defendant authorized plaintiff to use new roadway as soon as reservoir was completed; gave plaintiff keys to access roadway, which was closed to general public’s use; and plaintiff continued using new roadway for many years without obstruction until filing lawsuit. Where defendant had easement over part of plaintiff’s property that entitled it to patrol and maintain sanitary conditions to keep its reservoir water free from contamination, trial court reasonably concluded that whether particular development activities within that area would overburden easement was a question of fact, and it was thus not in a position to rule on defendant’s declaratory relief claim, which sought judgment that any development within area of an easement would threaten reservoir water and was thus precluded as a matter of law. Trial court did not err in allowing plaintiff to proceed with inverse condemnation action, where inverse condemnation pertained to diminution of value of plaintiff’s land that occurred before defendant brought direct condemnation action, thus not resulting in double recovery of damages. Inverse condemnation finding cannot stand where question of whether defendant breached agreement and, if so, whether plaintiff suffered damages as a result are questions to be redetermined on remand. As to inverse condemnation damages--even inverse condemnation finding must be redetermined on remand--trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing jury to hear various valuations of the property by plaintiff’s expert appraiser based on plaintiff’s evidence that land was suitable for a subdivision development, where one of main disputed issues at trial was highest and best use of subject property and whether a subdivision development on property was feasible.
     Trial court did not err in failing to give instruction as to inverse condemnation damages that jury could not award duplicative damages, where breach of contract/inverse condemnation award and eminent domain award compensated plaintiff for different losses that occurred at different times, not twice for same loss. Court did not err in refusing to instruct jury per defendant’s request that it must not award duplicative damages, where damages for direct and inverse condemnation are not duplicative; that owner of dominant estate must use its easement in such a way as to impose as slight a burden as possible on servient estate, where instruction was argumentative, unduly emphasized defendant’s overburdening theory, and was substantially covered by a special instruction court gave; that a sanitary easement is similar to conservation easement, where instruction was legally incorrect; that defendant was not obligated to grant a subdivision access easement if jury found such an easement would overburden defendant’s sanitary easement and reservoir, where subject was covered by instruction court gave regarding defendant’s contract defense of impossibility or impracticability of performance; and that jury must not value property with reference to what it was worth to plaintiff, where evidence of the property's highest and best use was relevant and admissible. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing defendant’s request to include specific questions about defendant’s contract defense of impossibility or impracticability of performance in verdict form, where court had instructed jury to find that defendant’s performance of contract was excused and contract discharged if it met its burden of proving its performance became impossible or impractical. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding litigation expenses to plaintiff for direct condemnation action, where it could reasonably find that defendant’s final offer to settle entire action was unreasonable as to direct condemnation claim given substantial difference between offer and compensation that was awarded plaintiff for entire action. Award must be redetermined on remand based on the outcome of retrial of plaintiff’s inverse condemnation and breach of contract claims.
     Red Mountain, LLC v. Fallbrook Public Utility District - filed August 18, 2006, Fourth District, Div. One
     Cite as 2006 SOS 4334
      Full text

Back to Top

-Easements-
Landowners did not have common law easement over national forest road surrounding their property where patent pursuant to which their predecessors-in-interest obtained property from government did not grant a vested property right of access over forest, either impliedly because issued pursuant to Homestead Act or expressly through language "with the appurtenances thereof." Forest Service’s proposed statutory easement pursuant to Federal Land Policy Management Act, which would provide landowners with access over road, is reasonable where act authorizes service to regulate access over forest at issue; and suspension, revocation and termination conditions in easement fall within government’s discretionary power under act to limit easements. Service’s imposition of $114 annual use fee on forest road is reasonable where charge is not on something landowners already own.
     The Fitzgerald Living Trust v. United States - filed August 30, 2006
     Cite as No. 0416149
      Full text 

-Environmental Law-
City violated California Environmental Quality Act when it approved environmental impact report for retail store that provided for the destruction of historically significant building where analysis of lower square-footage alternative that would have saved historic building was rejected as infeasible without detail and based solely on store owner’s conclusion that it would not have been competitive. City’s CEQA violation can only be remedied by revising the EIR to include an adequate analysis of the reduced-size alternative, recirculating the revised portion of the amended draft EIR, and adding to the administrative record evidence that will permit the city to make an informed, fact-based decision on the feasibility of the reduced-size alternative. City did not err in failing to recirculate EIR in response to an additional alternative proposed by a project opponent where city had considered similar alternative.
     Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (Lowe's HIW, Inc.) - filed August 4, 2006, Sixth District
     Cite as 2006 SOS 4093
      Full text

-Escrow-
Civil Code Sec. 2941, which establishes duties of beneficiary and trustee with respect to reconveyance of a deed of trust after secured obligation is satisfied, imposes no obligations on escrow holder to record trustee’s deed of reconveyance. Where individual sued escrow holder for failing to record a request for reconveyance of a deed of trust on his real property that secured a promissory note, trial court properly granted nonsuit in favor of escrow holder on basis that individual was not a party to escrow or escrow instructions whereby he claimed escrow holder owed him duty.
     Markowitz v. Fidelity National Title Company - filed May 31, 2006, publication ordered August 30, 2006, Second District, Div. Four
     Cite as 2006 SOS 4760
      Full text

-Inverse Condemnation-
Owners and occupiers of roadside property do not possess a right to be seen that requires the payment of compensation for municipal landscaping efforts having no injurious effect on any property rights other than the claimed right to visibility. Planting of trees in the vicinity of billboards did not implicate the compensation requirement set forth in Business and Professions Code Sec. 5412. Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 998 may apply to offers made by defendants in inverse condemnation actions and authorizes an award to a defendant of expert witness fees incurred before the defendant extends its offer to compromise. City’s offer to remove one of the trees blocking plaintiff’s billboards and pay $1,000 was a good faith offer under Sec. 998 where city was ultimately granted complete defense judgment.
     Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles - filed August 7, 2006
     Cite as 2006 SOS 4146
      Full text

Back to Top

-Inverse Condemnation-
Where, after timely filing notice of appeal, defendant filed an amended notice of appeal clearly communicating intent that postjudgment order on litigation expenses be included as an issue on appeal, plaintiff cannot reasonably contend it was misled or prejudiced as to defendant’s intent to appeal postjudgment order such that appeal must be dismissed in whole or in part. Where defendant public utility district had granted easement to plaintiff at time of purchasing several acres of its land, and agreement--granting plaintiff a 60-foot easement over existing road on west side of parcel being conveyed--was ambiguous as to whether scope of easement was limited to plaintiff’s personal ingress and egress or extended to permit access to a subdivision plaintiff sought to develop, trial court erred by failing to strictly interpret access easement in favor of defendant pursuant to Civil Code Sec. 1069, which requires every grant by a public body to be interpreted in favor of grantor if there is an ambiguity in grant, irrespective of extrinsic evidence of parties’ intent. Where plaintiff sued defendant for inverse condemnation/breach of contract for refusing to grant subdivision access easement, error prejudicially affected jury’s verdict on plaintiff’s inverse condemnation/breach of contract claim where jury could have found defendant did not breach parties’ agreement because easement for subdivision was much broader than personal easement defendant had agreed to convey.
     Trial court on remand must make new determination as to defendant’s liability for inverse condemnation and must grant retrial to determine whether defendant’s refusal to grant access easement constituted breach of contract. If jury on remand were to find defendant breached agreement, issue regarding damages would be whether easement would have enabled plaintiff to develop southerly portion of its property, even though easement was limited in scope to personal ingress and egress. Trial court did err in finding that after existing road referred to in agreement was obliterated by expansion of defendant’s reservoir, parties impliedly consented to relocate easement to newer road immediately to west of expanded reservoir, where defendant authorized plaintiff to use new roadway as soon as reservoir was completed; gave plaintiff keys to access roadway, which was closed to general public’s use; and plaintiff continued using new roadway for many years without obstruction until filing lawsuit. Where defendant had easement over part of plaintiff’s property that entitled it to patrol and maintain sanitary conditions to keep its reservoir water free from contamination, trial court reasonably concluded that whether particular development activities within that area would overburden easement was a question of fact, and it was thus not in a position to rule on defendant’s declaratory relief claim, which sought judgment that any development within area of an easement would threaten reservoir water and was thus precluded as a matter of law. Trial court did not err in allowing plaintiff to proceed with inverse condemnation action, where inverse condemnation pertained to diminution of value of plaintiff’s land that occurred before defendant brought direct condemnation action, thus not resulting in double recovery of damages. Inverse condemnation finding cannot stand where question of whether defendant breached agreement and, if so, whether plaintiff suffered damages as a result are questions to be redetermined on remand. As to inverse condemnation damages--even inverse condemnation finding must be redetermined on remand--trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing jury to hear various valuations of the property by plaintiff’s expert appraiser based on plaintiff’s evidence that land was suitable for a subdivision development, where one of main disputed issues at trial was highest and best use of subject property and whether a subdivision development on property was feasible.
     Trial court did not err in failing to give instruction as to inverse condemnation damages that jury could not award duplicative damages, where breach of contract/inverse condemnation award and eminent domain award compensated plaintiff for different losses that occurred at different times, not twice for same loss. Court did not err in refusing to instruct jury per defendant’s request that it must not award duplicative damages, where damages for direct and inverse condemnation are not duplicative; that owner of dominant estate must use its easement in such a way as to impose as slight a burden as possible on servient estate, where instruction was argumentative, unduly emphasized defendant’s overburdening theory, and was substantially covered by a special instruction court gave; that a sanitary easement is similar to conservation easement, where instruction was legally incorrect; that defendant was not obligated to grant a subdivision access easement if jury found such an easement would overburden defendant’s sanitary easement and reservoir, where subject was covered by instruction court gave regarding defendant’s contract defense of impossibility or impracticability of performance; and that jury must not value property with reference to what it was worth to plaintiff, where evidence of the property's highest and best use was relevant and admissible. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing defendant’s request to include specific questions about defendant’s contract defense of impossibility or impracticability of performance in verdict form, where court had instructed jury to find that defendant’s performance of contract was excused and contract discharged if it met its burden of proving its performance became impossible or impractical. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding litigation expenses to plaintiff for direct condemnation action, where it could reasonably find that defendant’s final offer to settle entire action was unreasonable as to direct condemnation claim given substantial difference between offer and compensation that was awarded plaintiff for entire action. Award must be redetermined on remand based on the outcome of retrial of plaintiff’s inverse condemnation and breach of contract claims.
     Red Mountain, LLC v. Fallbrook Public Utility District - filed August 18, 2006, Fourth District, Div. One
     Cite as 2006 SOS 4334
      Full text

Back to Top

-Land Use-
County's denial of a religious group's application for a conditional use permit to construct a temple on land zoned agricultural constituted a substantial burden under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000--which prohibits the government from imposing substantial burdens on religious exercise through land use regulation unless there exists a compelling governmental interest and the burden is the least restrictive means of satisfying the governmental interest--where county earlier denied application for CUP to build temple on residential land because of noise and traffic concerns, and denied current application to build on agricultural land on ground it constituted leap-frog development and that temple should be built in more urban area, and thus the stated reasons and history behind the denial at issue and previous denial to a significantly great extent lessened the possibility of applicant's constructing a temple in the future; and county did not prove compelling reasons for its action. RLUIPA is a permissible exercise of Congress's remedial power under Sec. 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
     Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Yuba City v. County of Sutter - filed August 1, 2006
     Cite as No. 0317343
      Full text

-Land Use-
Government Code Sec. 66452.6 (b)(1) under Subdivision Map Act limits any moratorium-related tolling of a tentative map’s expiration to five years. Where developer’s project was subject to multiple moratoria by city, expiration of developer’s vesting tentative map was tolled only for five years rather than for multiple tolling periods. Developer’s delivery to city engineer of a final map not conforming to requirements of vesting tentative map does not extend life of tentative map pursuant to Sec. 66452.6 (a)(1)’s provision that life of a tentative map is extended by 36 months upon filing of "a final map authorized by Section 66456.1"--which requires final map to be "in accordance with the approved or conditionally approved tentative map."
     Ailanto Properties, Inc. v. City of Half Moon Bay - filed August 30, 2006, First District, Div. Five
     Cite as 2006 SOS 4750
      Full text

-Property Taxation-
Where an income beneficiary of real property held by a testamentary trust died and was succeeded by another income beneficiary, there was a change in ownership under Proposition 13--thereby allowing the property to be reassessed at its current market value for property tax purposes--because the beneficiary’s death caused a transfer of the property’s primary economic value to the successor beneficiary, who acquired a present beneficial interest in the property.
     Reilly v. City and County of San Francisco - filed August 29, 2006, First District, Div. Three
     Cite as 2006 SOS 4623
     Full text

-Rent Control-
Rent control board’s regulation allowing a landlord to petition the board for a determination that a tenant is not using a rental unit as his primary residence, which would entitle landlord to raise the rent to conform to the more lenient statewide rent control law, defeats a landlord’s constitutional challenge to the board’s regulation of rent for a tenant not in occupancy.
     Borten v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board - filed August 14, 2006, Second District, Div. One
     Cite as 2006 SOS 4240
      Full text

Back to Top


Upcoming Events

No time to drive downtown?
Try attending by audio-conference
Available for all programs meeting at LACBA/LexisNexis Conference Center.

09/19/06
SPONSORING SUBSECTION:  Title Insurance
How the 2006 ALTA Loan and Owner's Policies Give Insureds More Coverage than Ever
On June 17, 2006 the American Land Title Association adopted new forms for the ALTA Loan and Owner's Policies.
The new forms made the most extensive changes to these policies in 36 years. This presentation will summarize
the most significant changes, particularly those that expand the coverage that these policies give to the insureds.
Speaker: Timothy J. Reardon, Lawyers Title Insurance Corp.
Location: Omni Los Angeles Hotel, 251 South Olive Street , Los Angeles 
Registration: 11:45 a.m.-12:30 p.m.; LUNCH: 12:00 p.m.; PROGRAM: 12:30-1:30 p.m.
Register Online


09/20/06

SPONSORING SUBSECTION: Real Estate Finance
The Re-Emergence of Hotel Financing and the Growth of Condotel Financing: Do You Know What You Need to Know?
The hospitality market collapsed after September 11, 2006, but it appears to be righting itself once again.
Average room revenues and occupancy rates are on the upswing. Condotels have become a hot commodity. The
panelists will review the key issues in hotel financing and make sure that your checklist is current.
They will also discuss the primary diffrences between financing of hotels and condotels and highlight some
of the most common pitfalls in condotel financing.  
Speakers: Susan J. Booth, Holland & Knight LLP; Adam B. Weissburg, Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP
Location: LACBA Conference Center, 281 S. Figueroa St., Los Angeles
Registration: 11:45 a.m.-12:30 p.m.; LUNCH: 12:00 p.m.; PROGRAM: 12:30-1:30 p.m.
Register Online


09/26/06
SPONSORING SUBSECTION: Construction Law
An Inside View of What Really Happens in Construction Mediation (With Movie Clips) and first Annual ADR Legislative Update

Learn the latest essential statutory and case law regarding ADR and how to best advance your clients' interest and
effectively prepare for mediation with this view from an accomplished mediator.
Speakers: Michael J. Bayard, Construction ADR Services; Karen Smith, Arbitration Mediation Conciliation Center (AMCC)   
Location: LACBA Conference Center, 281 S. Figueroa St., Los Angeles
Registration: 11:45 a.m.-12:30 p.m.; LUNCH: 12:00 p.m.; PROGRAM: 12:30-1:30 p.m.
Register Online
 

09/28/06

SPONSORING SUBSECTION: Commercial Development and Leasing
Lofts, Condo-Hotels and Other Mixed Use Developments
This program reviews the legal issues unique to lofts, condo-hotels and mixed use developments.
Speakers: Matthew C. Fragner, Fragner & Pace Law Corp.; Bill Pham, Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri
Location: LACBA Conference Center, 281 S. Figueroa St., Los Angeles
Registration: 11:45 a.m.-12:30 p.m.; LUNCH: 12:00 p.m.; PROGRAM: 12:30-1:30 p.m.
Register Online


10/04/2006
Real Property Issues- Civil Probate & Trust  
SPONSORING SUBSECTION: Real Property Section
Subsection/Committee: General Real Property
Program Information: TBA
Speakers:  Bruce E. Schwartz
Location:  LACBA Conference Center, 281 S. Figueroa Street , Los Angeles
Registration: 11:45 AM - 12:30 PM; Meal/Reception: 12:00 PM; Program: 12:30 - 1:30 PM
Register Online
  

10/11/2006
The New Environmental Due Diligence: Complying with EPA's AAI Rule  
SPONSORING SUBSECTION: Real Property Section
Subsection/Committee: Land Use Planning and Enviromental Law
Program Information:
As of November 1, 2006, environmental due diligence for real estate transactions must comply with EPA's new
"All Appropriate Inquiry" (AAI) Rule. The rule requires more involvement in the due diligence process by the
purchaser. Learn how the new rule is different and how it will affect the way you advise your clients in the
environmental due diligence process.
Speakers: TBA
Location: LACBA Conference Center, 281 S. Figueroa Street , Los Angeles
Registration: 11:45 AM - 12:30 PM; Meal/Reception: 12:00 PM; Program: 12:30 - 1:30 PM
Register Online 


10/17/2006
Mezzanine Loan Foreclosures and Their Impact on Title Insurance  
SPONSORING SUBSECTION: Real Property Section
Subsection/Committee: Title Insurance
Program Information: TBA
Speakers: Dennis B. Arnold, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Location: Omni Los Angeles Hotel, 251 South Olive Street , Los Angeles
Registration: 11:45 AM - 12:30 PM; Meal/Reception: 12:00 PM; Program: 12:30 - 1:30 PM
Register Online 
 

10/18/2006
Collateral Debt Obligations - The New Kid in Town  
SPONSORING SUBSECTION: Real Property Section
Subsection/Committee: Real Estate Finance
Program information: This presentation will discuss collateral debt obligations. What are they? How do they affect lenders' exit strategies and how do they change borrowers' negotiating strategies for mortgage loans?
Speakers: Wayne Brandt, Greenwich Capital
Location: LACBA Conference Center, 281 S. Figueroa Street , Los Angeles
Registration: 11:45 AM - 12:30 PM; Meal/Reception: 12:00 PM; Program: 12:30 - 1:30 PM
Register Online 
  

10/24/2006
The Cutting Edge of Risk Management for Mixed Use Projects and Construction Defects  
SPONSORING SUBSECTION: Real Property Section
Subsection/Committee: Construction Law & Commercial Development & Leasing
Program Information:
This program will provide the practitioner with information and strategies for risk management of mixed use projects from inception through completion and during the statute of repose period.
Speakers: Scott Firestone, Daniel M. Goodkin
Location: LACBA Conference Center, 281 S. Figueroa Street , Los Angeles
Registration: 11:45 AM - 12:30 PM; Meal/Reception: 12:00 PM; Program: 12:30 - 1:30 PM
Register Online
   

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

 

Los Angeles County Bar Association
2006 Real Property Section Newsletter

 REAL PROPERTY SECTION REVIEW
 Daniel L. Goodkin, Editor    *   Norman A. Chernin, Co-Editor

SECTION OFFICERS
Chair
Norma J. Williams

First Vice-Chair
Timothy M. Truax

Second Vice-Chair
Donald C. Nanney

Treasurer
Michael S. Klein

Secretary
Pamela L. Westhoff

Immediate Past-Chair
Paula K. Reddish Zinnemann

Hugo Vital,
Section Administrator

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Nedra Austin
Norman A. Chernin
Brant Dveirin
David Fu
Daniel L. Goodkin
John E. Hatherley
Trudi J. Lesser
Rebecca H. Lessley
Gregg J. Loubier
Thomas F. Quilling



Patricia Higuera,
Barristers Liaison  

D. Eric Remensperger
Michael G. Smooke
Linda E. Spiegel
Sarah J. Spyksma
Theresa C. Tate
Pamela L. Westhoff
John W. Whitaker
Valerie Wisot
Andrew J. Yamamoto
Sharon Yarber


David Fu and
   Donald C. Nanney
State Bar Liaisons

SUB-SECTION CHAIRS
Commercial Development & Leasing, Marcia Z. Gordon
Construction Law, Candace Matson
Land Use Planning & Environmental Law, Peter J. Niemiec
Real Estate Finance, Susan Booth
General Real Estate Law, Eric A. Altoon
Title Insurance, William H. Lynes (Chair) & William R. Larr (Co-Chair)