dark blue triangle in newsletter heading
Introductory Comment
Coming Event
Recent Cases
The Real Property Section Newsletter is published monthly by the Real Property Law Section.

Teresa Y. Hillery
Vice President and Trial Counsel
Fidelity National Law Group


Brant Dveirin

First Vice Chair
Susan J. Booth

Second Vice Chair
Caroline Dreyfus

Claire Hervey Collins

Eric Altoon 

Barristers Liaison
Kelsey Thayer

Section Administrator
Fatima Jones


Nedra E. Austin
Michael J. Bayard
Martha C. Bringas
Elizabeth Spedding Calciano
William G. Coskran
Robert T. Flick
Peter A. Gelles
Daniel L. Goodkin
Marcia Z. Gordon
Owen P. Gross
Byron Hayes, Jr
Marybeth Heydt
Lore A. Hilburg, Esq
Teresa Y. Hillery
Laurence L. Hummer
Gordon Hunt
Bryan C. Jackson
Robert D. Jaffe
Donna E. Kirkner
Michael S. Klein
Mark L. Lamken
Trudi J. Lesser
Gregg J. Loubier
Victor I. Marmon
Jerold L. Miles
O'Malley M. Miller
Donald C. Nanney
Gytis L. Nefas
Beth Peterson
Nadav Ravid
D. Eric Remensperger
James D. Richman
Misty Marie Sanford
Floyd Sayer
Margaret J. Schock
Ronald I. Silverman
Linda E. Spiegel
Sarah V J Spyksma
Theresa C. Tate
Kelsey M. Thayer
Timothy M. Truax
Richard S. Volpert
Ira J. Waldman
Brandon Dominic Ward
Alan Wayte
Pamela L. Westhoff
Norma J. Williams
Grace Winters
Andrew (Andy) J. Yamamoto
Paula Reddish K. Zinnemann


Construction Law,
Donna Kirkner

Finance Committee,
Owen Gross

General Property,
Beth Peterson

Land Use Planning and Environmental Law,
Brandon Ward

Title Insurance,
Lore A. Hilburg

Introductory Comment

As always, we are committed to providing our members with excellent programming.  If you cannot attend our in-person programs, consider a Live Webcast.  You can register from anywhere in the world and watch from your computer or mobile device.  If you are interrupted or unable to watch at the time of the event, you have up to 30 days to view it.

Teresa Y. Hillery
Editor, Real Property Section Newsletter
E-mail address:

Coming Event
Escrow 101
November 17, 2015
Los Angeles County Bar Association

Everything You Need to Know About Escrow, and How to Avoid Escrow Pitfalls and Potholes.

The seminar will cover the basics of an escrow – what is it, who are the parties, what are the duties, what are the obligations, what to expect, the role of sub-escrow, etc. In addition to a discussion of current escrow trends/hot topics, the discussion will also include the new CFPB and TRID and expert issues (i.e., whether or not expert testimony is/should be required to establish escrow standard of care).

> click here for more information
Recent Cases
-Attorney Fees-
Landlord filed an unlawful detainer action against Tenants.  Tenants, as the prevailing party, were granted an order for attorney’s fees in excess of the maximum amount specified in the parties’ lease agreement.  The court concluded that the trial court’s ruling was in error and reversed the attorney fees order.  The parties’ attorney fee provision was not void, and the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees in excess of the contractual limit.

511 S. Park View, Inc. v. Tsantis - filed September 15, 2015, publication ordered October 5, 2015
Cite as 2015 S.O.S. 4734
Full text

-Homeowner's Insurance-
Homeowners were advised by their general contractor and structural engineer that the rear of their residence was in the process of falling to the ground and advised them not to enter the second story of the house until the damage was repaired. After repairing the damage, homeowners made a claim for reimbursement against their insurance company because a portion of the house had collapsed and the expenditure was to avoid imminent insurable damage and to mitigate damages. The court held that the insurance company "is not liable for the reimbursement costs because there was not a collapse as defined in the policy, the duty to mitigate arises only after a loss from a collapse, and [insurance company] had no duty, express or implied, to reimburse the [homeowners] for costs to prevent imminent insurable damage."

Grebow v. Mercury Insurance Company - filed October 21, 2015, Second District, Div. Five Cite as 2015 S.O.S. 4993
Full text

-Land Use Ordinance-
Levi Family Partnership applied for a permit, pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code section 14.3.1, to build its proposed eldercare facility. The Zoning Administrator approved the project. The South Valley Area Planning Commission overturned that decision, concluding that "none of the findings required under section 14.3.1 for approval of the project had been demonstrated." In order to establish reversible error, Levi Family Partnership must demonstrate that all the key findings by the Commission are defective. One adequate finding is sufficient to support the Commission's decision, as the Commission is not obligated to make sub-findings to support its negative "benefit and burden" findings.

Levi Family Partnership, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles - filed September 16, 2015, publication ordered October 9, 2015, Second District, Div. Four Cite as 2015 S.O.S. 4829
Full text

-Subdivision Map Act-
Appellants bought a large tract of agricultural property that was recorded as a single parcel, but actually consisted of four separate parts of unequal size. These parts were previously formed when a local agency acquired through eminent domain two narrow strips of land crossing the property and intersecting each other. Appellants abandoned an effort to subdivide the property under the parcel map provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, and asked the county to issue certificates of compliance to confirm that each of the four parts nonetheless satisfied the requirement of the Act. The court held that a "division" of property within the meaning of the Subdivision Map Act does not occur simply because an eminent domain proceeding results in a physical separation of a property's non-condemned portions. The owner of such a property is therefore not entitled to a certificate of compliance for each of the resulting separate parts."

Save Mount Diablo v. Contra Costa County (Nunn) - filed October 7, 2015, First District, Div. One Cite as 2015 S.O.S. 4744
Full text

-Unlawful Detainer-
Tenant appealed a judgment in favor of Landlord who filed an unlawful detainer action on grounds that the Tenant failed to obtain and pay for renter’s insurance, required by the parties’ rental agreement.  Pursuant to the forfeiture clause in the rental agreement, Landlord argued that “any failure of compliance or performance by [Tenant] constituted grounds for eviction,” and that the materiality of the breach or [Tenant’s] substantial performance with the agreement was irrelevant. The court determined that the parties’ forfeiture clause rendered all breaches of the agreement to be material.  No evidence, jury instructions, or jury form related to the materiality of the breach were allowed. 

Boston LLC v. Juarez - filed October 1, 2015
Cite as 2015 S.O.S. 4728
Full text


© 2015 Los Angeles County Bar Association Contact LACBA at


You are subscribed to as %%emailaddr%% .

You are receiving this message because you are a member of the Los Angeles County Bar Association (LACBA) or one of its sections, have registered to receive correspondence through LACBA's website, or are a member of the legal profession. If you wish to be excluded from any future correspondence, please see instructions below or mail us at 1055 West 7th Street, Suite 2700, Los Angeles, CA 90017-2557.

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, click the following url, %%url.unsub%% or copy and paste the following url into your browser %%url.unsub%%

LACBA twitter LACBA on Linkedin Real Property Section homepage Real Property Section Newsletters