-- Homeowners Association –
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the homeowners association and against property owners, pursuant to Civil Code §5975. Although property owners did succeed in having some of the association imposed fines deemed unreasonable, the net result of the case was to reaffirm the association's ability to enforce its CC&Rs. The award of fees to prevailing homeowners association did not violate public policy, as it was consistent with the Davis-Stirling Act.
Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Association v. Carson - filed Apr. 19, 2016, Sixth District
Cite as 2016 S.O.S. 2017
Full text click here >
--Inverse Condemnation--
Homeowners' inverse condemnation complaint failed to state a cause of action where it alleged only impairment of their views and a speculative risk of fire danger, neither of which constituted a taking or damaging of their property.
Boxer v. City of Beverly Hills - filed Apr. 26, 2016, Second District, Div. One
Cite as 2016 S.O.S. 2147
Full text click here >
-- Loan Servicing --
When a lender acquires by assignment a loan being administered by a loan servicer, the lender may be liable to the borrower for misrepresentations made by the loan servicer, as the lender's agent, after that assignment. A loan servicer may owe a duty of care to a borrower through application of the
Biakanja factors: "(1) the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, (2) the foreseeability of harm to [the plaintiff], (3) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, (4) the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, (5) the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct, and (6) the policy of preventing future harm. (
Biakanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal. 2d 647, 650)
Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. - filed Apr. 26, 2016, Sixth District
Cite as 2016 S.O.S. 2102
Full text click here >
-- Nonjudicial Foreclosure --
Borrower's complaint for cancellation of instruments, unfair competition, foreclosure by entity lacking a beneficial interest, declaratory relief, and violation of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR) failed to state a cause of action. The causes of action were 'barred as a matter of law' because there is no recognized cause of action that allows a borrower to test the legal authority of the entity initiating nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings in a suit brought before the foreclosure sale occurs (a 'preemptive action'); [Borrower] lacked standing; and [Borrower's] 'contention that [Defendants] lack[ed] authority to enforce the Deed of Trust [was] contradicted by matters subject to judicial notice. The court also found that [Borrower] had not alleged a sufficient injury in fact to support her unfair competition claim and that her claims under the HBOR failed for lack of explanation of the law's applicability.
Brown v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company - filed May 9, 2016, First District, Div. One
Cite as 2016 S.O.S. 2376
Full text click here >