What Do I Do With This Stuff? Dealing With Abandoned Property After Foreclosure
October 20, 2016 —
Lyndsey Torp – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogYou’ve successfully foreclosed on a commercial building in California, and, thankfully, the borrower moved out after foreclosure or after a period of tenancy. But the borrower left behind all sorts of property – furniture, filing cabinets, records, and other assorted property. While you may be tempted to just toss it all in the dumpster, doing so may subject you to liability. There are several statutes that you should consider when determining how to handle the abandoned property.
Statutory Options for a Landlord
A landlord-tenant relationship may arise following foreclosure if, for example, the owner of the property accepts rent from the former owner. If the tenant subsequently turns over possession of the commercial property but leaves personal property at the premises,[1] California Civil Code provides a landlord with statutory options to deal with “lost” (Cal. Civ. Code § 2080) or “abandoned” property (Cal. Civ. Code §1993).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lyndsey Torp, Snell & WilmerMs. Torp may be contacted at
ltorp@swlaw.com
No Coverage Under Property Policy With Other Insurance and Loss Payment Provisions
September 17, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that the other insurance and loss payment provisions relieved the insurer of coverage obligations. Moroney Body Works, Inc. v. Central Ins. Co., 2015 Mass. App. LEXIS 97 (Aug. 6, 2015).
A fire destroyed Moroney's custom-built bookmobile that had just been completed. Moroney had two policies: a commercial property policy issued by Central, and a garage insurance policy issued by Pilgrim Insurance Company. Central denied liability for the bookmobile. Pilgrim covered the cost of repairing the bookmobile. It paid $12,449.82 based on the appraiser's estimate of the repair costs. Moroney thought this amount was inadequate given its own estimate of the repair costs.
Moroney sued both insurers. Pilgrim settled by paying Moroney an additional amount which, when added to Pilgrim's earlier payment, resulted in Moroney receiving more than the repair cost. Moroney and Central both moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted Moroney's motion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Newmeyer & Dillion Named as One of the 2018 Best Places to Work in Orange County for Seventh Consecutive Year
August 15, 2018 —
Newmeyer & DillionNEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – JULY 23, 2018 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is proud to be selected as one of the 2018 Best Places to Work in Orange County in the category of medium sized companies. This marks the seventh consecutive year Newmeyer & Dillion LLP has made the list, affirming that its profound commitment to professionalism and client service is shared among its workforce. The ranking was released in a special section of the Orange County Business Journal's July 23 issue.
Jeff Dennis, Newmeyer & Dillion's Managing Partner, commends the effort of each employee in achieving this result. "Together, we strive to maintain an innovative, collaborative and creative culture that cannot be matched anywhere else, and we are sincerely grateful for each of our employees' ongoing commitment to the firm's values."
The awards program was created in 2009 and is a project of the Orange County Business Journal and Best Companies Group. This county-wide survey and awards program was designed to identify, recognize and honor the best places of employment in Orange County, California, benefiting the county's economy, its workforce and businesses.
For more information on the survey process for the Best Places to Work in Orange County program, visit www.BestPlacestoWorkOC.com or contact Jackie Miller at 877-455-2159.
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
Stormy Seas Ahead: 5th Circuit to Review Whether Maritime Law Applies to Offshore Service Contract
July 26, 2017 —
Richard W. Brown & Afua S. Akoto - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Earlier this year, the 5th Circuit applied the Davis factors to determine the validity of an indemnity clause in a Master Services Contract. In Larry Doiron Inc. et al., v. Specialty Rental Tool & Supply LLP et al., the court affirmed the notion that if a contract provides services on navigable waters aboard a vessel, a maritime contract exists, even if the contract calls for incidental or insubstantial work unrelated to the use of a vessel. With this decision, plaintiffs were granted indemnification for a crane injury and all was well on the open seas.
The 5th Circuit made waves, however, on July 7, 2017, when it agreed to rehear the case en banc. In its petition for rehearing, defendant STS argued that: (1) the original opinion conflicted with Supreme Court precedent by applying tort law principles to a contract case; (2) the court misapplied the Davis factors and the decision was contrary to Davis because the historical treatment of specialty well service work has been established as non-maritime; (3) the court needed to address whether a contract is subject to maritime or land-based law in the context of offshore mineral exploration.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas School District Accepts Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case
October 08, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Pine Tree ISD Board of Trustees “voted to accept a mediated settlement agreement to end litigation concerning the District’s middle school and its construction issues,” according to KETK News. Pine Tree ISD, located in Longview, Texas, “sued a number of defendant companies for construction and design defects at that campus.”
The school district “will receive the total sum of $820,500,” which “will cover the District’s costs in remediating the campus to repair the construction problems, as well as implementing new systems designed to prevent future issues, both of which came out of the District’s general fund.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Labor Code § 2708 Presumption of Employer Negligence is Not Applicable Against Homeowners Who Hired Unlicensed Painting Company
December 02, 2015 —
Kristian B. Moriarty & Yvette Davis – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Vebr v. Culp (Filed 10/28/2015, No. G050730), the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of homeowners, where an employee of an unlicensed painting company was injured on the premises. Despite the fact that the painting company was deemed unlicensed for failure to acquire workers’ compensation insurance, the negligence presumption of Labor Code § 2708 was inapplicable to the homeowners as de facto “employers" of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff, Tomas Vebr, was employed by OC Wide Painting, a licensed painting contractor. OC Wide Painting had a license issued by the California Contractors State License Board, but had filed for an exemption from the requirement that it maintain workers’ compensation insurance. The exemption was granted on the basis OC Wide Painting “did not have any employees.” However, OC Wide Painting actually had multiple employees, including Vebr. Therefore, by operation of law, the license was deemed void.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Yvette Davis, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Under Privette Doctrine, A Landowner Delegates All Responsibility For Workplace Safety to its Independent Contractor, and therefore Owes No Duty to Remedy or Adopt Measures to Protect Against Known Hazards
September 29, 2021 —
Krsto Mijanovic, Jeffrey C. Schmid & John M. Wilkerson - Haight Brown & BonesteelIn Gonzalez v. Mathis (2021 WL 3671594) (“Gonzalez”), the Supreme Court of California held that a landowner generally owes no duty to an independent contractor or its workers to remedy or adopt other measures to protect them against known hazards on the premises. The Court applied the Privette doctrine which establishes a presumption that a landowner generally delegates all responsibility for workplace safety to its independent contractor. (See generally Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689; SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 590.) As such, the independent contractor is responsible for ensuring that the work can be performed safely despite a known hazard on the worksite, even where the contractor and its workers are unable to take any reasonable safety precautions to avoid or protect themselves from the known hazard.
In Gonzalez, the landowner, Mathis, had hired an independent contractor, Gonzalez, to clean a skylight on his roof. To access the skylight, Gonzalez needed to utilize a narrow path between the edge of the roof and a parapet wall. While walking along this path, Gonzalez slipped and fell to the ground, sustaining serious injuries. Gonzalez alleged this accident was caused by several dangerous conditions on the roof, including a slippery surface, a lack of tie-off points to attach a safety harness, and a lack of a guardrail. Gonzalez was aware of all of these hazards prior to the accident.
Reprinted courtesy of
Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel,
Jeffrey C. Schmid, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and
John M. Wilkerson, Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Schmid may be contacted at jschmid@hbblaw.com
Mr. Wilkerson may be contacted at jwilkerson@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Courts Generally Favor the Enforcement of Arbitration Provisions
May 10, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn recent posts (
here and
here) I have discussed arbitration provisions and cases dealing with the enforceability of arbitration provisions.
The case of Lemos v. Sessa, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D701a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) deals with two noteworthy principles when it comes to arbitration that warrant another post about arbitration provisions.
First, courts will and should try to resolve any ambiguity in arbitration provisions in favor of arbitration.
Second, when there is an offending arbitration provision or one that includes language that violates public policy, the trial court “should sever the offending provisions from the arbitration clause so long as such severance does not undermine the parties’ intent.” Lemos, supra. This principle is reinforced when the arbitration provision is in an agreement that contains a severability provision.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
