Real Property Case Summary Updates

February 2020

By Monty McIntyre

California Case Summaries™ (https://californiacasesummaries.mykajabi.com)
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq. is the publisher of California Case Summaries™. 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) in ADR’s offices in San Diego, Irvine, and Los Angeles. California Case Summaries™provides short summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new published civil and family law case so California lawyers can easily and affordably keep up with the new case law in their practice areas. Monthly, quarterly and annual subscriptions are available.  

California Courts of Appeal

Real Property

Gamerberg v. 3000 E. 11th Street, LLC (2020)_ Cal.App.5th _ , 2020 WL 289092: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment upholding an unrecorded parking affidavit from 1950 granting eight parking spaces to the owner of a neighboring lot who was going to build a warehouse exceeding the maximum allowable square footage. Assuming the unrecorded parking affidavit created an irrevocable license, the trial court erred as a matter of law in upholding it because defendant did not have either actual or constructive notice of the parking affidavit when he purchased the property. (C.A. 2nd, January 21, 2020.)

Williams v. 21st Mortgage Corp. (2020)_ Cal.App.5th _ , 2020 WL 359027: The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer, without leave to amend, to plaintiff’s complaint alleging defendant interfered with her rights under California law, breached its contract with her, acted negligently, and committed elder financial abuse by foreclosing on her home. The trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the claim for violation of Civil Code section 2924c. Ruling on an issue of first impression, the Court of Appeal held that section 2924c allowed plaintiff to avoid foreclosure by paying defendant the post-bankruptcy petition arrears. Plaintiff was not required to also pay the pre-bankruptcy petition default amount of $20,000 that was subject to the bankruptcy plan. The bankruptcy plan altered plaintiff’s obligations to defendant such that the prepetition arrears were not then due under section 2924c. The trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the unfair competition claim because it was derivative to the section 2924c claim. The trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the cause of action alleging a violation of Civil Code section 2923.7 for failing to provide a single point of contact to plaintiff after she requested a foreclosure prevention alternative. The trial court properly sustained the demurrer to the breach of contract and negligence per se causes of action. (C.A. 1st, January 22, 2020.)