California Case Summaries™ (https://cacasesummaries.com)
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. is the publisher of California Case Summaries™ which provides short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new published civil and family law case helping California lawyers easily master the new case law in their practice areas, get better results and referrals, and grow their law practice. Monthly, quarterly and annual subscriptions are available. Annual Practice Area subscriptions are also available in the areas of Employment, Family Law, Real Property and Torts. Monty hasbeen a California civil trial lawyer since 1980, a member of ABOTA since 1995, and currently works as a full-time mediator, arbitrator and referee with ADR Services, Inc. (ADR) conducing Zoom hearings throughout California. (https://www.adrservices.com/neutrals/mcintyre-monty/)
Please let your Real Property Law Section members know that my annual publications California Case Summaries Annual – Real Property 2020 ™ (with summaries of every new Arbitration, Attorney Fees, Civil Code, Civil Procedure, Environment, Evidence, Government, Landlord & Tenant, Real Property & Settlement case published in 2020), and California Case Summaries Annual 2020™ (with summaries of every civil case published in 2020) are now available at https://cacasesummaries.com.
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
ESA Management, LLC v. Jacob (2021) _ Cal.App.5th Supp. _ , 2021 WL 1723516: The Appellate Department of the San Diego Superior Court reversed the trial court’s unlawful detainer judgment for plaintiff. The Appellate Department concluded the 60-Day Notice of Termination of Tenancy was fatally defective and could not support an unlawful detainer judgment because it did not include the amount of rent due or any information to permit the tenant to cure the default for nonpayment of rent as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(2). Moreover, plaintiff’s compliance with the Tenants’ Right to Know Regulations set forth in the San Diego Municipal Code section 98.0701 et seq. did not satisfy the strict notice requirements set forth in section 1161(2) relative to a default in the payment of rent. The judgment was reversed because plaintiff failed to comply with the statutory requirements, which are strictly construed. (Appellate Department of the San Diego Superior Court, April 30, 2021.)
Public Resources Code
Lent v. Cal. Coastal Commission (2021) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2021 WL 1248022: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting a writ petition in part on the basis that substantial evidence supported respondent’s decision to issue a cease and desist order and to impose a penalty for petitioner’s refusal to remove from their Malibu property, on respondent’s easement, a deck providing private access to the beach, a staircase from the deck leading to the house, and a gate blocking public access to the easement area that had been constructed by a prior owner. The Court of Appeal reversed the portion of the trial court’s order granting the writ petition and setting aside the penalty imposed by respondent of $4,185,000. The trial court concluded respondent had violated petitioners’ due process rights by not giving them adequate notice of the amount of the penalty respondent intended to impose. The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that respondent did not violate petitioners’ due process rights by imposing a $4,185,000 penalty, even though its staff recommended a smaller penalty, because respondent had previously advised petitioners it could impose a penalty of up to $11,250 per day and respondent’s staff specifically advised petitioners that respondent could impose a penalty of up to $8,370,000. The Court of Appeal also held that petitioners failed to show that Public Resource Code section 30821 is unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied to petitioners, and the penalty did not violate the constitutional prohibition on excessive fines. (C.A. 2nd, April 5, 2021.)
Tsasu LLC v. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. (2021) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2021 WL 1220171: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in an action for quiet title. The Court of Appeal ruled that, under Code of Civil Procedure section 764.060, a third party who acts in reliance on a quiet title judgment retains its property rights—even if that quiet title judgment is subsequently invalidated as void—as long as the third party qualifies as a purchaser or encumbrancer for value without actual or constructive knowledge of any defects or irregularities in the earlier quiet title judgment or the proceedings. Because the recorded chain of title in this case revealed that the earlier quiet title judgment had been prosecuted and obtained against a party that no longer held interest in a deed of trust and because the third party whose lien priority rested on that judgment actually knew of facts warranting further inquiry into the validity of the judgment, that third party had constructive knowledge of a defect or irregularity in the judgment and the trial court properly granted summary judgment. (C.A. 2nd, April 1, 2021.)