California Case Summaries™
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.
Taniguchi v. Restoration Homes (2019)_ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 1923068: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in an action alleging defendant violated Civil Code section 2924c. The Court of Appeal ruled that, to cure a default and reinstate the loan under section 2924c, the borrowers need not pay the amount of an earlier default on the original loan (which had been deferred under a loan modification to the end of the loan term). They are only required to pay the missed modified monthly payments that caused a default on the modified loan. (C.A. 1st, April 30, 2019.)
SPRAWLDEF v. Dept. of Resources Recycling and Recovery (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 1772032: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order denying petitioner’s petition for a writ of administrative mandamus seeking to overturn the issuance of a revised permit for the Potrero Hills Landfill in Solano County. The Court of Appeal ruled that petitioner failed to preserve at all stages of the administrative proceedings its argument that the permit allowed expanded operations not in conformance with the countywide siting element of Solano County’s countywide integrated waste management plan. The former California Integrated Waste Management Board (Board) was not required to entertain the administrative appeal. To the extent the Board nevertheless addressed the merits, given the statutory language, petitioner failed to demonstrate reversible error. And, as to the open meeting law, even if closed session deliberations were improper, petitioner failed to show prejudice warranting the nullification remedy it sought. (C.A. 3rd, filed March 26, 2019, published April 22, 2019.)
Chun v. Del Cid (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2019 WL 1872913: The Court of Appeal reversed the ruling of the Appellate Department of the Los Angeles Superior Court finding that the real property in question satisfied the definitional criteria of the single–family dwelling exemption to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance of the City of Los Angeles (Ordinance; Los Angeles Municipal Code section 151.00 et seq.). The Court of Appeal ruled that, regardless of the original design and use of the property as a single-family residence, its current configuration (nine bedrooms, two bathrooms, and one kitchen) and current use for occupancy (four individual bedrooms rented to separate households who share the kitchen and bathrooms, but who alone have exclusive access to and use of their rooms) did not qualify for the single–family dwelling exemption from the Ordinance because it is not a “detached dwelling containing only one dwelling unit” within the meaning of section 12.03. (C.A. 2nd., April 26, 2019.)
Shoen v. Zacarias (2019) _ Cal.App.5th _ ,2019 WL 1486865: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment, following a court trial, granting plaintiff an irrevocable license based upon plaintiff’s substantial expenditure improving the land in the execution of the license. The trial court erred by construing the substantial expenditure requirement too permissively and using the wrong legal standard in declaring the license to be irrevocable. (C.A. 2nd, April 4, 2019.)