Source: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/Sections/Real-Property-Law/Publications/E-Bulletin/October-2017
Timestamp: 2017-10-23 06:08:12
Document Index: 779659988

Matched Legal Cases: ['§4', '§5', '§8', '§2409', '§357', '§11', '§13', '§14', '§15', '§15', '§1983', '§1983', '§16', '§16', '§16']

9th Circuit Blocks Claims Excluded During Bankruptcy
Selected Developments in Real Property Law -- Condemnation Practice in California
The Third Annual Northern California Women in Commercial Leasing Law Symposium: Spotlight on Women in Construction – Understanding Work Letters
Webinar: Techniques for Successful Rapport Building in Attorney-Client Relationships, Thursday, November 9, 2017
Save the Date: 2018 REAL Symposium, Thursday, February 8, 2018 at Stanford
Save the Date: 2018 Real Property Retreat, Thursday - Sunday, April 19 – 22, 2018, in San Francisco
By: Laura N. Coughlin, Washington Associate and T. Robert Finlay, Partner, Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP
Spurred by the UTA’s amicus efforts, the 9th Circuit recently provided foreclosure trustee’s with some well-needed protection from borrower lawsuits. Meyer v. Northwest Trustee Services, No. 15-35560, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16551 (9th Cir. 2017). While the Meyer decision is unpublished, the rationale behind the ruling could arguable apply to future litigation against trustees in the 9th Circuit of the Federal Courts, which includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.
In its decision, the Ninth Circuit declined to review the borrower’s claims but instead determined that the borrowers were barred from bringing the claims against Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. (“NWTS”) under the doctrine of judicial estoppel. The ruling sends the message to borrowers that, as soon as they learn of a potential claim during their bankruptcy, they must amend their schedules or disclosure statements to include the claim as an asset. If they don’t, their subsequent claims could be barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel.
Judicial Estoppel prevents a party from claiming one set of circumstances and then later claiming a different inconsistent set to their advantage. Any potential claim a debtor has is an asset of the bankruptcy estate because if they prevail on those claims, the monies they receive could go toward paying their creditors. By failing to include a potential claim, debtors mislead the court and their creditors. Their failure to disclose the claim during the bankruptcy prevents them from bringing the claim at a later date when it is most advantageous to the debtor.
In late 2005, Peter J. Meyer and Sharee L. Meyer (“Meyers”) executed a promissory note and deed of trust. The loan was later transferred into a securitized trust. US Bank was appointed the trustee of the trust and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) was the authorized servicer and custodian. Sometime in 2008, the Meyers defaulted on the loan.
In 2010, NWTS received a referral to foreclose along with the required beneficiary declaration, executed by Wells Fargo as attorney in fact for the beneficiary. The referral also included the loss mitigation declaration, signed by the same person but as an employee of America’s Servicing Company (“ASC”).Selected Developments in Real Property Law — Condemnation Practice in California
Courtesy of CEB, we are bringing you selected legal developments in areas of California real property law that are covered by CEB’s publications. This month’s feature is from the September 2017 update to Condemnation Practice in California (3d ed Cal CEB). References are to the book’s section numbers. See CEB’s RPLS landing page for special discounts for section members.
This update addresses the most significant statutory and regulatory changes since the previous update was published. Among the most significant recent developments are the following:
A loss of goodwill claim for a nonprofit organization was recognized in People ex rel Dep't of Transp. v Presidio Performing Arts Found. (2016) 5 CA5th 190. See §§4.66, 4.77.
A new section has been added with detailed discussion of how to define the "public project" for purposes of determining severance damages. See §5.3A.
In another long-awaited decision, the California Supreme Court approved the use of the pre-condemnation entry statute for geologic borings, as well as extensive environmental studies, on the basis of the legislature's corrective amendments to the statute since 1923. Property Reserve, Inc. v Superior Court (California Dep't of Water Resources) (2016) 1 C5th 151. See detailed discussion in §8.27A.
In Alaska Dep't of Natural Resources v U.S. (9th Cir 2016) 816 F3d 580, 587, the Ninth Circuit ruled that when a state's claim under the Quiet Title Act (28 USC §2409a) is barred, it may not litigate title to contested rights of way on Indian lands "through the back door" by asserting a condemnation claim under 25 USC §357. See §11.12.
In Boxer v City of Beverly Hills (2016) 246 CA4th 1212, the court held that residential property owners do not have a property right to an unobstructed view when large trees growing on a city park do not physically invade their property. Also, the fire risk posed by the trees was speculative. See §§13.3A, 13.4, 14.13A.
For an application of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v U.S. (2012) 568 US ___, 133 S Ct 511, to temporary flood damage arising from storm surge during Hurricane Katrina caused by the Army Corps of Engineers' construction, expansions, operation, and failure to maintain the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, see St. Bernard Parish Gov't v U.S. (2015) 121 Fed Cl 687 (a detailed opinion on foreseeability, causation, and intervening events). See §14.6.
The court in City of Corona v AMG Advertising, Inc. (2016) 244 CA4th 291 upheld against a constitutional challenge a city ordinance prohibiting all new offsite billboards after 2004 but allowing ones that were erected before the ordinance's enactment to be relocated if a permit was obtained. See §15.16.
Landlord-tenant lawyers may recall that in Levin v City & County of San Francisco (ND Cal 2014) 71 F Supp 3d 1072, a federal district court held unconstitutional an ordinance requiring landlords who sought to withdraw their rent-controlled property from the rental market to pay an extraordinary lump-sum payout to regain possession. (The formula for the payout was the monthly rental rate at the time of the notice of withdrawal, multiplied by 24.) After the city amended its ordinance in light of that decision, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the city's appeal as moot, in Levin v City & County of San Francisco (9th Cir, Mar. 13, 2017, No. 14–17283) 2017 US App Lexis 4384. See §15.19.
Because there is no specific statute of limitations for an action brought under 42 USC §1983, the federal courts look to the law of the state in which the action arises for the applicable statute of limitations. If identical §1983 claims are pursued in different forums, a federal court has held that the statute of limitations is equitably tolled in the second filed action only during the pendency of the claim in the first filed action. See Honchariw v County of Stanislaus (ED Cal, Nov. 14, 2016, 1:16–cv–1183–LJO—BAM) 2016 US Dist Lexis 157422, discussed in the Note in §16.4.
In Lynch v California Coastal Comm'n (July 6, 2017, S221980) 2017 Cal Lexis 5054, the Supreme Court reinforced the rule that acceptance of the benefits of a permit bars the owner from challenging the conditions of that permit. In Lynch, the property owners accepted a Coastal Commission permit to restore a seawall that protected their residential properties, but in order to proceed, they had to accept conditions that the permit will expire in 20 years and that the owners had to record a deed restriction stating that the condition restricted the properties. See §16.10A.
In a bizarre inverse condemnation case, Daniel & Francine Scinto Found. v City of Orange (CD Cal, Aug. 3, 2016, SA CV 15–1537–DOC) 2016 US Dist Lexis 102060, the court applied the U.S. Supreme Court's ripeness test enunciated in Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v Hamilton Bank (1985) 473 US 172, 105 S Ct 3108, when the plaintiff presented the court with an inadequate record with which to determine whether there was any definitive municipal action to bar a church from use of property. See §16.11.
1. The Basics of Estate Planning.
a. Monterey, October 9th and 10th
b. https://ceb.com/the-basics-2017-estate-planning-live-program
c. Hugely popular with new and transitioning attorneys
2. The Basics of Criminal Defense.
b. https://ceb.com/the-basics-2017-criminal-defense
c. New!
3. Using CEB Essential Forms.
a. October 18th via live webinar
b. Free!
c. https://ceb.com/using-ceb-essential-forms
d. This program will demo the CEB Essential Forma
e. CLE credit is provided
4. Renewal Retreat 2017: Hit Refresh on Your Practice.
a. Friday, October 27th at the UC Berkeley Faculty Club
b. https://ceb.com/renewal2017
Registration: 11:30 a.m. -12 noon, MCLE: 12 noon -12:45 p.m., Networking Lunch: 12:45 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.
Location: The State Bar of California, 180 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
In person Program: Earn 1.5 hours MCLE credit.
We will be offering online registration in the near future. The Deadline to pre-register is Wednesday, November 1, 2017
Presented by The State Bar of California Real Property Law Section and the Women in Real Estate Law Affinity Group of the National Association of Women Lawyers in conjunction with Women in Leasing Law
It takes a village to design, implement and construct tenant improvements pursuant to the work letter attached to the commercial real estate lease. It seems like a cast of thousands are required including client (tenant), landlord construction representative, leasing counsel, broker, general contractor, project manager, architect and engineers. This workshop brings together the key players in a typical high tech office build out for a lively discussion of each real estate professional’s role in the lease negotiation and construction process to provide a better understanding of how to productively negotiate and perform the work letter.
Kristin Paul, Executive Director, PGIM Real Estate
Karla Deshon, President & CEO, Paradigm GC
Angie Simon, President, Western Allied Mechanical, Inc.
Nancy Losey, Head of Office Operations, Lyft
Moderator: Jo Ann Woodsum, The Law Offices of Jo Ann Woodsum
Registration Fee: $25. Seating is limited: RSVP Required.
Cancellations or refund requests must be received in writing by Wednesday, November 1, 2017. Refunds will not be available after Wednesday, November 1, 2017.
On-site registration is subject to availability. Call 415-538-2508 to confirm space availability.
For special assistance, please call 415-538-2564. For registration information call 415-538-2508. Telephone registrations will not be accepted. For program content and/or Section information call 415-538-2564.
The State Bar of California and the Real Property Law Sectionare approved State Bar of California MCLE providers,
Webinar: Techniques for Successful Rapport Building in Attorney-Client Relationships
This program offers 1 hour participatory credit. You must register in advance to attend.
Stages of client interactions
Engaging: building rapport
Focusing: what is the goal?
Evoking: what is the client willing to do?
Planning: how will the client do it?
The engaging stage is the most critical stage because it builds the rapport and gives the lawyer credibility to advise the client.
Techniques for engaging (OARS)
Open ended questions give the client the opportunity to share without feeling like the lawyer is badgering with questions. Lawyers may need to get specific information. However, the directing questions may limit engagement, and also limit the client’s willingness to provide information voluntarily. Proper engagement with open ended questions means the client is more likely to provide critical information readily and when they would like. Try to avoid interrupting.
Affirming is reinforcing specific aspects of what the client has said. For example, “coming to me shows that you are committed to resolving this problem.” Affirming specific aspects of the client’s story can help the client focus on specific behaviors, and continue to reinforce them. Reinforcing these positive behaviors can help prevent the client from engaging in behaviors that damage their case throughout the representation. Be genuine.
Main technique: make a guess. This is where you provide additional information regarding what the client means. For example, “you wanted the harassment to stop.”
Alternative to “what I’m hearing is that you wanted to harassment to stop.”
Using this technique gives the client a feeling of collaboration between the lawyer and the client. This collaboration makes the client trust the lawyer. By focusing entirely on the client, the lawyer builds trust and can more easily move to giving legal advice. Attempting to provide advice BEFORE the client is fully engaged leads to conflict, even with the most well-meaning clients.
What it sounds like. Makes sure that the client has expressed everything that they want to express. Ensures that the attorney has understood the salient points. Ask the client to talk about goals and what they would like you to do for them.
How does engaging, specifically, apply to lawyers working with clients?
The idea that experts are the ones who can give the best advice. Instead, using OARS affirms that clients are experts in themselves, and the most qualified people to decide what will work best for them. The purpose of an attorney is to help clients navigate an area that they do not understand to achieve their own goals. Providing expert advice that is disconnected from the client will likely lead to disengagement.
When presented with directive information, people are disinclined to agreeing. Only when they, themselves have presented the possibility will they be open to hearing this information. Thus, engaging properly with a client is important because proper engagement ensures a client will be open to listening to the attorney’s advice.
Way to avoid giving directive advice. Before providing advice, ask the client for permission. Do not assume that because they are in your office they want your advice.
First elicit: “In my experience, certain strategies work best with people in your situation, are you open to hearing about them.”
S econd, provide: Provide information that is relevant to the client and the goals you have identified when talking to them.
Third elicit: elicit a response from the client “I know this has worked for clients in the past, but how does that sound to you?”
Speaker: Frantz Farreau
Save the Date: 2018 REAL Symposium
The Seventh Annual Real Estate and Law Symposium
Paul Brest Hall (Law School)