CALIFORNIA CASE SUMMARY UPDATE: December 2024 Real Property Case Summaries

By:  Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.

Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Helping Attorneys Get Excellent Results

Publisher: California Case Summaries™:
California Case Summaries™: the fast and easy way to always know the new cases in your practice areas to get a competitive advantage and win more cases.  
Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee at ADR Services, Inc.:
Business, employment, insurance, probate, real property and torts cases. To schedule, contact one of Monty’s case managers Haward Cho, haward@adrservices.com, (213) 683-1600, or Rachael Boughan, rboughan@adrservices.com, (619) 233-1323.  
Trial Mentoring™:  Trial training and preparation. Email Monty at: monty@montymcintyre.com.    
Trial Alchemy™: Interviews of outstanding plaintiff and defense lawyers and civil trial judges who are ABOTA members about what works, and what doesn’t work in jury trials. Available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and YouTube.

California Case Summaries™:

California Case Summaries™: The fast and easy way to always know the new published cases in your practice areas to get a competitive advantage and win more cases. This unique subscription provides one-paragraph case summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new civil case published by California courts. Subscribers get monthly issues with Westlaw case citations, quarterly issues with the official case citation, and an annual issue in early January each year with the official case citations. Individual attorney and Law Firm Unlimited Multi-user subscriptions are available. To subscribe, click here.

Here are the case summaries from last month:

CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL

Real Property

Kaur v. Dual Arch International (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2024 WL 5082546: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting defendant Dual Arch International, Inc.’s (DAII) nonsuit following plaintiffs’ second opening statement during the jury trial of plaintiffs’ action for quiet title that also sought to stop the nonjudicial foreclosure sale of a deed of trust securing a promissory note for $60,000. Plaintiffs alleged that the note and deed of trust were forgeries and void. Defendant DAII was the successor trustee under the deed of trust. The other defendants, the alleged lenders, never appeared in the civil action and were defaulted. The trial court initially granted plaintiffs’ motions for nonsuit against all defendants. It later granted defendant DAII’s motion for nonsuit, concluding it was entitled to immunity under Civil Code section 47, as provided by Civil Code section 2924(d), because plaintiffs failed to identify facts in their opening statement showing actual malice. Addressing the split of authority regarding whether the immunity provided by section 2924 (d) is the litigation privilege under section 47(b) or the qualified common interest privilege in section 47(c), the Court of Appeal was persuaded by the reasoning in Kachlon v. Markowitz (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 316 and concluded that the immunity provided by section 2924(d) is the qualified common interest immunity of section 47(c). Although it was a close call, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court and concluded that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the collective evidence offered by plaintiffs was sufficiently substantial that a jury could (but would not necessarily be required to) find actual malice. (C.A. 5th, filed November 15, 2024, published December 11, 2024.)

Lazar v. Bishop et al. (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2024 WL 5182189: Ruling on a matter of first impression, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s action against defendant real estate brokers for breach of the fiduciary duty defendants owed to plaintiff’s father in connection with the sale of his house in Malibu (the house). The complaint alleged that plaintiff’s father assigned plaintiff his causes of action arising from the listing and sale of the house. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding plaintiff lacked standing to sue because the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty was not assignable under Civil Code section 954. The Court of Appeal disagreed, ruling that plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of the real estate brokers’ fiduciary duties, which sought only damages related to property rights and pecuniary interests, was assignable because plaintiff’s claim was closely tied to the real property and a pecuniary interest in the proceeds from the sale of the house. Plaintiff pled damages attributable only to the commission paid to defendants, the money spent preparing the home for sale, and the amount greater than the sale price that would have been paid had defendants not allegedly breached their fiduciary duty. Plaintiff was not seeking personalized relief, e.g., damages for emotional distress, reputational damage, or physical injuries. On the spectrum of unassignable (highly personalized) and assignable (based in property and pecuniary rights) claims, the Court of Appeal concluded that this fraud claim landed solidly on the side of assignability. (C.A. 2nd, December 19, 2024.)

Majestic Asset Mgmt LLC v. The Colony at Cal. Homeowners Assn. (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2024 WL 5114734: The Court of Appeal revised and otherwise affirmed the trial court’s order, following a multi-day hearing, entering a decree foreclosing golf course real property under a performance deed of trust (PDOT). The decree stated the value of the PDOT was $2,748,434.37, which was to be included in the judgment creditor’s credit bid. This sum included $2,503,500 that was needed to repair the golf course, plus a monthly management fee of $12,000 for three years discounted to the present value of $244,934.37. The trial court also stated that even if the judgment debtors redeemed the property, they would nevertheless remain subject to the judgment and permanent injunction requiring the judgment debtors to maintain the golf course. The Court of Appeal affirmed the $2,503,500 amount to repair the golf course. While the trial court erroneously used tort law to support that number, the correct contract law principals also supported that amount. However, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court erred in adding the additional $244,934.37 because the judgment debtors did not agree to hire a professional manager to manage the golf course. (C.A. 4th, December 16, 2024.)

Schneider v. Lane (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2024 WL 4929283: The Court of Appeal affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the trial court’s rulings in a second action between adjoining landowners regarding easement rights. The actions arose after two incidents where riverbank erosion caused by flooding destroyed part of an appurtenant easement defendant used to access her property. A judgment in the first action after the first incident established that the easement burdened the entirety of the servient tenement owned by plaintiffs and the trial court ruled that defendant was not required to reconstruct the damaged property for the easement, and it relocated the easement further inland on plaintiffs’ land. That judgment was not appealed. The second action was filed after the second incident. The trial court in that action granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment to plaintiffs’ complaint for quiet title concluding that plaintiffs’ action was barred by res judicata, and found for defendant/cross-complainant (defendant) on her cross-complainant, relocating the easement further inland and ruling that defendant’s responsibility for maintaining her easement under Civil Code section 845 obligated her to stabilize the riverbank from further erosion at her cost. The Court of Appeal agreed that plaintiff’s action was barred by res judicata. However, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court erred by interpreting section 845 as requiring defendant to stabilize the riverbank as part of maintaining the easement. (C.A. 3rd, December 2, 2024.)

Woolard v. Regent Real Estate Services (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2024 WL 4965439: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting a motion for summary judgment by two cross-defendants (a management company and a homeowner’s association) who were brought into a lawsuit that the Court of Appeal observed should only have involved two sets of homeowners who got into a violent altercation. The trial court properly granted the summary judgment. There was simply no law to support the contentions that cross-defendants had some unspecified duty to do something to prevent what turned into an allegedly violent dispute. Imposing a duty on homeowners associations or their managing agents to intervene and attempt to resolve disputes between homeowners (or their tenants) would place an untenable burden on those entities. (C.A. 4th, filed December 3, 2024, published December 23, 2024.)

******

Check out Monty’s new podcast Trial Alchemy ™ where he interviews outstanding plaintiff and defendant civil trial lawyers who are members of the American Board of Trial Advocates.

Trial Alchemy is a discussion with outstanding medical malpractice defense attorney and ABOTA member Dominique Pollara, Esq. This podcast is a great way for civil trial lawyers, whether they’ve tried no cases or many cases, to learn from jury trial experts.

Click here to listen to complete podcast.
To listen to the podcast on Spotify, click here.
To listen to the podcast on Apple, click here.
To watch and listen to the podcast on YouTube, click here.