Real Property Law

Real Property Case Summary Updates

Please share:

By Monty McIntyre

June 2021

California Case Summaries™ (
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. (   

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


Landlord – Tenant

Stancil v. Super. Ct. (2021) _ Cal.5th _ , 2021 WL 1727612: The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal ruling denying defendant writ relief from the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to quash service of summons under Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 in an unlawful detainer case. The California Supreme Court held that no defendant may use a motion to quash service of summons as a means of disputing the merits of the unlawful detainer complaint’s allegations or to argue the plaintiff failed to comply with the pleading requirements specific to unlawful detainer actions set out in Code of Civil Procedure section 1166. (May 3, 2021.)


Public Resources Code

Kracke v. City of Santa Barbara (2021) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2021 WL 1746301: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting a petition for writ of mandate enjoining respondent’s enforcement of its Short-Term Vacation Rental (STVR) ban in the coastal zone unless it obtained from the California Coastal Commission (Commission) a coastal  development permit (CDP) or an amendment to its certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). The trial court properly considered the STVR ban to be a “development” under the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Coastal Act; Public Resources Code, section 30000 et seq.). The  loss of STVRs impacted the density or intensity of use of land and the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto because STVRs provide a resource for individuals and families, especially low-income families, to visit the Santa Barbara coast. The unavailability of low-cost housing and tourist facilities was an impediment to coastal access. Consequently, the Coastal Act required the Commission’s approval of a CDP, LCP amendment or amendment waiver before the STVR ban could be imposed. (C.A. 2nd, May 4, 2021.)

Real Property

Alliance For Responsible Planning v. Taylor (2021) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2021 WL 1758303: See summary above under Government.

California Coastkeeper Alliance v. State Lands Commission (2021) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2021 WL 1837324: See summary above under Environment.

Paterra v. Hansen (2021) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2021 WL 2036514: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying the motion of ABS REO Trust II (ABS) to correct/vacate the portion of a prior quiet title judgment adjudicating the rights of defaulting party Clarion Mortgage Capital, Inc. (Clarion). The trial court erred in denying ABS’s motion because the February 2018 Amended Judgment was void as to Clarion for three independent reasons. First, Clarion was never served with the second amended complaint, and this complaint differed materially from the first amended complaint with respect to Clarion. Second, the trial court acknowledged it did not hold a hearing to adjudicate plaintiff’s rights against Clarion on the Deed of Trust, and under Code of Civil Procedure section 764.010, this meant the judgment against Clarion was void. Third, plaintiff’s failure to name Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., the beneficiary on the recorded Clarion Deed of Trust when plaintiff filed her quiet title lawsuit, rendered the judgment void as to Clarion. (C.A. 4th, filed April 27, 2021, published May 21, 2021.)

Forgot Password

Enter the email associated with you account. You will then receive a link in your inbox to reset your password.

Personal Information

Select Section(s)

CLA Membership is $99 and includes one section. Additional sections are $99 each.