Real Property Law
CALIFORNIA CASE SUMMARY UPDATE: December 2023 Real Property Case Summaries
Helping Attorneys Get Excellent Results
Publisher: California Case Summaries™:
Monty publishes California Case Summaries™, with one-paragraph summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new civil case published each month, quarter and year in California, giving subscribers a competitive advantage and excellent results.
Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee at ADR Services, Inc.:
Monty handles matters in the areas of business, employment, insurance (bad faith, coverage, UIM), probate (trusts and estates), real property and torts (elder abuse, medical malpractice, personal injury, product liability and wrongful death). To schedule, contact Monty’s case managers Haward Cho, haward@adrservices.com, (213) 683-1600, or Rachael Boughan, rboughan@adrservices.com, (619) 233-1323.
Master Lawyer Mentoring™: Trial training & Associate training. For more information, call Monty at (619) 990-4312 or email him at monty@montymcintyre.com.
California Case Summaries™:
California Case Summaries™: Unique one-paragraph summaries, organized by legal practice, of every new published civil case each month, every quarter, and in early January each year an annual issue is released. These case summaries, offered throughout the year, give subscribers a competitive advantage to win more cases. To subscribe, click here.
Here are case summaries from last month:
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
Landlord – Tenant
Castaic Studios v. Wonderland Studios (2023) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2023 WL 7592532: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining defendant’s demurrer, without leave to amend, to plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action. Plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement where plaintiff granted defendant the “exclusive right to use” certain
areas of its commercial property. The agreement specified that it was a “license agreement,” as opposed to a lease, with plaintiff retaining legal possession and control of the premises. The agreement was to be governed by the contract laws and not by
the landlord tenant laws. After defendant defaulted, plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action seeking possession of the property. The trial court properly sustained defendant’s
demurrer without leave to amend because plaintiff had waived its right to pursue the remedy of unlawful detainer. (C.A. 2nd, November 15, 2023.)
Runnymede Holdings, LLC v. Foster (2023) _ Cal.App.5th Supp. _ , 2023 WL 7179436: The Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court reversed the trial court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in an unlawful detainer action. The trial court granted the motion, concluding there were no issues of material fact. The Appellate Department disagreed, concluding that while defendant failed to assert the affirmative defenses discussed in the opposition papers in his answer to the complaint, because they were raised in the opposition papers and at the hearing of the motion, plaintiff was not prejudiced. The motion was improperly denied because defendant raised several issues of material fact. (Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court, September 25, 2023.)
Real Property
Yee v. Panrox Internat. (USA), Inc. (2023) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2023 WL 8182859: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying the motion of Panrox International (USA), Inc. (Panrox) claiming that a lien it held against real property in Los Angeles was valid. Plaintiff Herman Yee (plaintiff) and defendant Ann Hon (defendant) worked together in defendant’s company, and lived together, but they sued each other after their relationship ended. In the 1990s plaintiff and defendant did business with Panrox. Plaintiff agreed to give Panrox a $141,000 lien on his house in Los Angeles, and defendant agreed to give Panrox a $141,000 lien on her house in San Francisco. After plaintiff and defendant defaulted on their contract with Panrox, Panrox took steps to sell the properties. Plaintiff sued Panrox in the San Francisco Superior Court. Defendant sued Panrox in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Both actions were later coordinated and assigned to the Los Angeles Superior Court. The court file, however, was later lost. The Register of Actions showed that the San Francisco action was settled in 1999 and a deed of reconveyance was recorded regarding the San Francisco house saying the deed of trust had been fully paid. Nothing was recorded regarding the Los Angeles house. Panrox ceased operation in 1998 and was suspended in 2001. It remained suspended until it was revived by its former attorney in 2021 at a time when plaintiff and defendant were suing each other to partition the Los Angeles house. The revived Panrox claimed in the partition action that it was entitled to be paid for its lien on the Los Angeles house. The trial court properly denied the Panrox motion because, under Evidence Code section 1603, the recorded deed was prima facie evidence that the interest described in the deed was conveyed to the deed’s grantee, and the annotations in the Register of Actions showed there had been a settlement. (C.A. 2nd, November 27, 2023.)