Real Estate, Land Use and Environmental Law Blog - Up-to-date information on Real Estate, Land Use and Environmental Law

Pinnacle Museum Tower Association v. Pinnacle Market Development (US) LLC, No. D055422 (4th Dist. July 30, 2010)

By Michael Wilmar and Aaron Kleven

Homeowners and homeowner associations are not necessarily bound by arbitration provisions in a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions, or in a related purchase agreement, where the developer is the initial and only declarant. That is the implication of a July 30th ruling of the Fourth District of the California Court of Appeal. In Pinnacle Museum Tower Association v. Pinnacle Market Development (US) LLC, a homeowner association brought a construction defect suit on behalf of itself and its members for damage to common areas. The developer of the condominium project attempted to block the suit, claiming the plaintiff was bound to an arbitration provision recorded in the project CC&R's. It argued the provision committed the Association to resolve all construction disputes through arbitration and waived the Association’s right to a jury trial. The purchase and sale agreements signed by the individual condominium owners also contained a jury waiver and a provision compelling owners to comply with the arbitration provision in the CC&R's. But the court concluded that the provision in the CC&R’s did not constitute an agreement sufficient to wave the Association's constitutional right to a jury trial. And it found the corresponding provision in the purchase and sale agreement unconscionable and unenforceable against the individual owners.

By Douglas E. Wance

Espinoza v. Calva, ____ Cal. App.4^th ____

(December 16, 2008, Case No. G040006, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three)

In an unlawful detainer action, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's award of past due rent under a lease where the landlord had failed to secure a required certificate of occupancy for the leased premises and the tenants were unaware of the requirement at the time they leased the premises.

The landlord brought the action against the tenants seeking eviction and an award of past due rent.  The tenants claimed the premises were uninhabitable.  They introduced records that no occupancy permit had been issued for the premises and a copy of applicable city ordinances, all which were admitted by the trial court.  The trial court awarded possession of premises to the landlord, and also awarded the landlord $2,350 for rent.

California Coastal Commission, etc., et al. v. Michael A. Allen, ___ Cal. App. 4th ___ (Oct. 1, 2008, Case No. B197974)

By David Collins

In this case, California Court of Appeal affirmed an order for sale of dwelling pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 704.740 (part of the state’s Enforcement of Judgments Law) finding the Coastal Commission's assignee of a $1,469,000 judgment lien had properly secured a valid assignment of the judgment and that the homestead exemption did not apply because the subject dwelling was not owned by a natural person.

Lu v. Grewal
(05 C.D.O.S. 5740, June 28, 2005)

By Mary Hedley

A tenant who abandons a commercial leasehold cannot escape all liability for its breach by taking advantage of the landlord's work in restoring the space and making it profitable. In Lu v. Grewal the tenant abandoned a gas station with almost 3 years left on its lease. When the landlords re took the premises, they found that the gas pumps had been torn out of the ground, gasoline was pooling in holes in the ground, computer controls had been ripped off the walls, the premises were vandalized, and the convenience-store items were missing or broken. The landlords worked around the clock to repair the property and operate the business themselves. They sued the tenant for breach of the lease, including damages for removing fixtures and a claim for the rent that was due following abandonment.