CALIFORNIA CASE SUMMARY UPDATE: July 2025 Real Property Case Summaries

July 2025

By: Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.

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

Publisher: California Case Summaries™: Know More. Win More.
Mediator 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.    
Trial Alchemy™: Learn from Civil Jury Trial Experts. Available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and YouTube.

California Case Summaries™:

California Case Summaries™: California attorneys can win more cases by always knowing the new published civil in their practice areas. California Case Summaries™ makes this easy by providing one-paragraph case summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new civil case published by California courts in monthly issues, quarterly issues, annual issues, or all three. Individual Attorney and Law Firm Unlimited (lets the firm send summaries to every lawyer) subscriptions are available.To subscribe,click here.

Here are the case summaries from last month:

CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL

Landlord-Tenant

Coyote Aviation Corp. v. City of Redlands (2025) __ Cal.App.5th __, 2025 WL 1587299: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining demurrers, without leave to amend, to Coyote Aviation Corp’s (Tenant) first amended complaint alleging breach of contract, specific performance, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory relief and promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance related to defendant City of Redlands’ (City) denial of Tenant’s untimely request to renew its lease. The Court of Appeal also affirmed the trial court’s order granting City’s motion for summary judgment in its later unlawful detainer action filed after tenant refused to vacate the premises in response to a 30-day notice to quit. Tenant and City entered into a 20-year lease on April 4, 2000 (Lease), which would terminate on April 4, 2020 unless tenant exercised an option to extend the Lease. The parties later entered into an amended lease on September 5, 2000 (Amended Lease), which kept the original termination date of April 4, 2020. A few months after the amended lease was signed, Tenant learned of this discrepancy and attempted to change the termination date with the City but no change was ever made to the Amended Lease. In 2020, after the expiration of the Amended Lease on April 4, Tenant sent a notice that it wanted to extend the lease but this was denied by the City. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s demurrer rulings concluding there was no basis to consider extrinsic evidence considering the provisions in the Amended Lease, there was no waiver of the termination date, and rejecting the other claims by Tenant. The Court of Appeal also affirmed the trial court’s order granting City’s motion for summary judgment in the unlawful detainer action. (C.A. 4th, June 5, 2025.)

Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025) __ Cal.App.5th __, 2025 WL 1764252: The Court of Appeal transferred this case from the appellate division of the superior court to decide whether a tenant can appeal a judgment for possession in an unlawful detainer proceeding if the landlord has outstanding damages claims that have not been adjudicated. It concluded that a possession-only judgment is not appealable in this situation because it does not resolve all rights of the parties. However, given the uncertainty of the law on appealability at the time defendant filed his appeal, the Court of Appeal treated the appeal as a petition for writ of mandate to avoid any further delay. It concluded that the three-day notice to pay rent or quit served by plaintiff landlord, pursuant to section 1161(2) was invalid for failure to make clear by when and how defendant tenant had to pay the rent, and that defendant would lose possession of the premises if he did not timely cure the default. Plaintiff’s complaint incorporating the three-day notice therefore failed to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer and the Court of Appeal directed the trial court to vacate the judgment in favor of plaintiff and to enter a new judgment in favor of defendant. (C.A. 2nd, June 26, 2025.)

Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal v. City of Oakland: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment for plaintiff awarding it specific performance and declaratory relief and damages of $317,683, and its award to plaintiff of $6,572,880.44 in attorney fees and $276,805.90 in costs, following a long bench trial regarding plaintiffs’ complaint for breach of a 66 year ground lease that gave plaintiff Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (OBOT) the right to develop a bulk cargo shipping terminal at the site of the former Oakland Army Base, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory relief and defendant’s cross-complaint for breach of contract and declaratory relief. The dispute arose after defendant tried to stop the transportation of coal through the terminal in response to public backlash and later terminated the ground lease. The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that the trial court properly ruled that force majeure applied, its findings of six events of force majeure did not conflict with any terms of the ground lease or California law, its finding that OBOT did not anticipate defendant’s actions was supported by the record, its finding of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing was supported by the evidence, it properly ruled that res judicata did not bar OBOT’s claim, and its judgment for subtenant Oakland Global Rail Enterprise was proper. (C.A. 1st, June 27, 2025.)

Real Property

Amundson et al. v. Catello (2025) _ Cal.App.5th _, 2025 WL 1563241: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s interlocutory order identifying the owners of real property as cross-defendant Ruth Catello (Catello) and the estate of decedent Leslie J. Knoles (decedent) and ordering a partition by sale. Decedent had four surviving siblings. Catello and decedent originally acquired title to the real property as joint tenants. About one month before her death, decedent recorded a quitclaim deed that, if valid, severed the joint tenancy and created a tenancy in common with no right of survivorship. Catello and the siblings filed dueling petitions in the probate court. Those proceedings were not yet concluded when the Court of Appeal issued its decision. This appeal arose after Catello filed an action against two of the siblings to cancel the quitclaim deed and for quiet title to the real property, the siblings later filed a cross-claim seeking to partition the real property by sale, and the trial court entered its interlocutory judgment. The Court of Appeal reversed the interlocutory judgment because the siblings did not have standing to bring the partition action. Code of Civil Procedure section 872.210(a)(2) provides that a partition action may be commenced and maintained by an owner of an estate of inheritance in real property. The probate proceedings, however, had not yet determined whether the real property was a part of decedent’s estate. Because the party seeking partition must have clear title, the uncertainty of the outcome of the probate proceedings precluded the siblings from establishing the ownership interest required to bring a partition claim under section 872.210. (C.A. 4th, Decision after rehearing, June 3, 2025.)

Wang v. Peletta (2025) __ Cal.App.5th __, 2025 WL 1779191: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment for defendant, following a bench trial, quieting title against plaintiffs’ easement claims and ordering plaintiffs to remove encroachments including a retaining wall and to restore a hillside. Plaintiffs had built a retaining wall on their property in Napa County in the late 1990’s without first obtaining permits or a survey, apparently in the belief that the boundary between their property and an adjoining one ran along a barbed wire fence between them. Defendant bought the adjoining property in 2013, and later conducted a survey that showed the fence did not in fact mark the property line, and much of the retaining wall encroached on his property. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court properly granted defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of a prescriptive easement, it properly concluded that plaintiffs’ failed to show that the trespass was innocent, and it properly granted defendant’s motion to exclude evidence of allegedly defamatory statements that defendant made to government entities. (C.A. 1st, June 27, 2025.)

******
Trial Alchemy™ by Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.

In this monthly podcast Monty interviews outstanding plaintiff and defendant civil trial lawyers, and civil trial judges, who are members of the American Board of Trial Advocates. The podcast is a great way for civil trial lawyers, whether they’ve tried no cases or many cases, to learn from civil jury trial experts:

To listen to the podcast on Spotify, click here.

To listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, click here.

To watch and listen to the podcast on YouTube, click here.