Ten Years After Colorado’s Adverse Possession Amendment: a brief look backwards and forwards
September 25, 2018 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn response to national outrage over an infamous adverse possession case in Boulder, Colorado, in which a lawyer and a judge intentionally took their neighbors’ undeveloped land through adverse possession, the Colorado legislature amended the state’s adverse possession statute (C.R.S. § 38-41-101) to make the claim significantly harder to prove. It did this because it believed “there were insufficient ‘obstacles’ to establishing a claim for adverse possession under the existing law.”[1] Effective July 1, 2008, the amendment created a heightened burden of proof, additional element requirements, and the possibility of a losing defendant recovering money from successful plaintiffs for the value of the land they took and the taxes the defendant had paid on that land.
The Boulder case eventually settled, but the resulting statutory amendments have drastically changed the landscape of Colorado’s adverse possession law. Ten years later, this blog post takes a brief look at the amended statute, the impact it has had, and questions that have yet to be resolved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & WilmerMr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at
lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
The NAR asks FAA to Amend their Drone Rules for Real Estate Use
September 24, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFHousing Wire reported that the National Association of Realtors (NAR) “is pushing for an exception for Realtors in the current rules on Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) technology since their motives don’t disrupt safety concerns, according to a letter sent on Tuesday to the FAA.”
According to Housing Wire, the NAR believes that real estate professionals would benefit from UAV technology, more commonly referred to as drones, in a variety of ways, “including, law enforcement, environmental scanning, geographical surveys and disaster recovery assessments.”
The NAR stated, as quoted in Housing Wire, “Use of UAV technology by the real estate industry is simple compared to other applications such as land surveying or law enforcement. The use of UAV technology would be limited in scope to the property itself. Properly written regulation would permit the use of UAV technology within the real estate industry, while maintaining safety in the NAS and privacy of citizens.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
President Trump Nullifies “Volks Rule” Regarding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Recordkeeping Requirements
April 13, 2017 —
Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPOSHA requires employers to maintain safety records for a period of five years. The Occupational Safety and Health Act contains a six month statute of limitations for OSHA to issue citations to employers for violations. In an effort to close the gap between the five years employers are required to keep records and the six month citation window, the Obama Administration implemented the “Volks Rule,” making recordkeeping requirements a “continuing obligation” for employers and effectively extending the statute of limitations for violations of recordkeeping requirements from six months to five years.
On March 22, 2017, the Senate approved a House Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 83) nullifying the “Volks Rule” and limiting the statute of limitations to six months for recordkeeping violations. President Trump signed the resolution nullifying the “Volks Rule” on April 3, 2017. The nullification appears to be in line with President Trump’s stated goal of generally eliminating governmental regulations.
What Does This Mean for California Employers?
California manages its own OSHA program, which generally follows the federal program, but is not always in lock-step with Federal OSHA. Cal/OSHA, under its current rules, may only cite employers for recordkeeping violations that occurred during the six months preceding an inspection or review of those records. To date, there has been no indication that California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) has plans to adopt the “Volks Rule.” Barring a change, California employers will continue to operate under the status quo and be required to maintain safety records for five years, but will only be exposed to citations for recordkeeping violations occurring within the last six months.
Current Cal/OSHA Recordkeeping Requirements
Cal/OSHA form 300 (also known as the “OSHA Log 300”) is used to record information about every work-related death and most work-related injuries that cannot be treated with onsite first aid (specific requirements can be found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 14300 through 14300.48). Currently, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 14300.33 requires employers to retain OSHA Log 300 for a period of five years following the end of the calendar year during which the record was created, despite the fact that Cal/OSHA can only cite employers for failing to maintain such records for up to six months preceding an inspection.
Looking to the Future
Cal/OSHA is working on regulations that would require electronic submission of OSHA Log 300 records in California. This would bring Cal/OSHA more in line with Federal OSHA, which already requires electronic submission.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer & Dillion LLPMr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at
dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com
Arizona Supreme Court Confirms a Prevailing Homeowner Can Recover Fees on Implied Warranty Claims
August 30, 2017 —
Rick Erickson - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogOn August 9th, in Sirrah Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Wunderlich, the Arizona Supreme Court settled the question about recovery of attorneys’ fees after prevailing on implied warranty claims against a residential contractor. The simple answer is, yes, a homeowner who prevails on the merits can recover the fees they spent to prove that shoddy construction breached the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability. Why? Because, as Justice Timmer articulated, “[t]he implied warranty is a contract term.” Although implied, the warranty is legally part of the written agreement in which “a residential builder warrants that its work is performed in a workmanlike manner and that the structure is habitable.”
In other words, a claim based on the implied warranty not only arises out of the contract, the claim is actually based on a contract term. Since, in A.R.S. § 12-341.01, Arizona law provides for prevailing parties to recover their fees on claims “arising out of contract” and because the implied warranty is now viewed by the courts as a contract term, homeowners can recover their fees after successfully proving breach of the implied warranty.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rick Erickson, Snell & WilmerMr Erickson may be contacted at
rerickson@swlaw.com
Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected for the 2024 Edition of Best Lawyers and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch
September 11, 2023 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPBest Lawyers and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch – 2024 Edition
Best Lawyers 2024 Edition
- Bruce Cleeland
- Peter Dubrawski
- Denis Moriarty
- Theodore Penny
Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2024 Edition
- Frances Brower
- Kyle DiNicola
- Kristian Moriarty
- Arezoo Jamshidi
- Josh Maltzer
- Philip McDermott
- Patrick McIntyre
- Annette Mijanovic
- Kathleen Moriarty
- Bethsaida Obra-White
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
California Court Forces Insurer to Play Ball in COVID-19 Insurance Coverage Suit
December 13, 2022 —
Latosha M. Ellis & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOne of the threshold issues in COVID-19 insurance coverage cases that have been brought across the country is whether the policyholder’s allegations meet the applicable pleading standard in alleging that the virus caused physical loss or damage. In many cases, the courts have gotten it wrong, effectively holding policyholders to a higher standard than required. But recently, a California federal judge righted those wrongs by acknowledging the correct pleading standard in that case, which is whether the allegations state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The Court, here, correctly recognized that the policyholder, the Los Angeles Lakers, met that pleading standard when it alleged that the COVID-19 virus can cause physical loss or damage by physically altering property.
In its complaint, the Los Angeles Lakers alleged that the virus physically altered its property by changing its chemical and physical property conditions, creating viral vectors that required remedial measures before the property was safe again. Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 591 F. Supp. 3d 672 (C.D. Cal. 2022), adhered to on reconsideration, 2022 WL 16571193 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2022). The Court agreed that these allegations by the Lakers adequately pled physical alteration to support a claim for property damage. The insurer requested reconsideration of the decision, and the Court emphatically affirmed its prior decision, explaining its rationale as follows:
The Court lacks the scientific expertise necessary to conclude, based solely on the allegations in the FAC . . . that it is not plausible for the Lakers’ property to have been physically altered by the Virus, which the Lakers adequately alleged. Consequently, the Court, in the March 17 Order, concluded that the Lakers’ theory was plausible. Whether the Lakers can actually prove its theory will be determined at summary judgment or trial.
Reprinted courtesy of
Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
To Bee or Not to Bee - CA Court Finds Denial of Coverage Based on Exclusion was Premature Where Facts had not been Judicially Determined
November 28, 2018 —
Philip B. Wilusz - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.While I typically discuss cases concerning pollution, today I will change a few letters around and discuss pollination. The case, Unigard Insurance Co. et al. v. George Perry and Sons Inc. et al., asks whether there is coverage for a lawsuit brought against a commercial farm that is alleged to have killed off bee colonies used for pollination. The farm, owned by George Perry & Sons Inc. (“Perry”), allegedly used a pesticide that killed off the bee colonies that Perry had hired from Gary Mattes (“Mattes”) pursuant to an oral agreement. The bees, operating well outside of their weight class, were hired to pollinate Perry’s crops of watermelons and pumpkins. Interestingly, the bees would be brought to the farm in either large hives or “nukes,” which are smaller versions of hives.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at
pbw@sdvlaw.com
New LG Headquarters Project Challenged because of Height
January 24, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe new LG headquarters project in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, has been challenged by various environmental groups because of what the groups see “as a blight on the Hudson River landscape,” according to the New York Times. The problem isn’t the building itself, but the proposed height of the tower: LG “plans to construct eight stories, 143 feet total, in an area previously zoned for a maximum of 35 feet. The height restriction was first lifted through a variance, which has been challenged in State Superior Court in one of two lawsuits filed to protect the view. Subsequently the land was rezoned to allow for a taller building.”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Natural Resources Defense Council, and a New Jersey conservation group are continuing to fight against the removal of the height restriction. “This is like if somebody tried to build a high-rise next to Yellowstone,” Mr. Kennedy said in an interview with the New York Times. “It’s a national issue.”
However, there is also local support for this project, “which LG has said will be environmentally sensitive and produce jobs,” reported the New York Times.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
