Posted on January 10, 2015
It is common for two or more individuals or business entities to hold title to real estate as co-owners, also known as "tenants in common." In this type of ownership, each party owns an undivided interest in the whole. This may work well as long as the parties agree on what to do with the property. But what happens when the relationship sours or the parties otherwise reach an impasse?
A recent decision by the California Court of Appeal answers this question to a large extent, and the answer is... it depends!
In Grand Prospect Partners LP v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc. (2015) 182 Cal. Rptr. 3d 235, the Court looked at a co-tenancy clause agreed upon by two sophisticated parties to a commercial retail lease, and addressed the issues of whether the clause was unconscionable and/or an unenforceable penalty. It found that despite the relatively equal sophistication of the two parties, under some circumstances, the co-tenancy agreement can constitute an unreasonable penalty and be unenforceable, although it may not be unconscionable.
Posted on January 15, 2015
Employment related legislation was big in 2014. The Legislature once again passed a number of pro-employee bills that are worth reading about. While this list is not exhaustive, it provides an overview of the key legislation employers should be aware of. In case you are tempted to skip this article, remember that the State of California expects employers to know and understand all laws that are passed that may affect your employees. So keep reading!
Posted on January 10, 2015
It is common for two or more individuals or business entities to hold title to real estate as co-owners, also known as "tenants in common." In this type of ownership, each party owns an undivided interest in the whole. This may work well as long as the parties agree on what to do with the property. But what happens when the relationship sours or the parties otherwise reach an impasse?
In Nevada, although an individual is expressly excluded as a driver in an insurance policy, if the excluded individual drives the car with the owner's permission, the insurance company must cover at least the statutorily required minimum coverage.
Posted on January 9, 2015
In Nevada, although an individual is expressly excluded as a driver in an insurance policy, if the excluded individual drives the car with the owner's permission, the insurance company must cover at least the statutorily required minimum coverage.
An issue that sometimes arises in the employment cases we handle concerns whether an employer/employee relationship really exists between the parties. The reason this comes up is because the employee sues not only the employer, but also all of the companies who are affiliated with the employer, such as parent companies, franchisors, or other businesses owned by the same family. The employer wants to carve these affiliated entities out of the case and shield them from the lawsuit.
This November, the California Association of Realtors ("CAR") is coming out with a new standard Residential Purchase Agreement ("RPA"). The new RPA contains revisions to its Financing, Loan Contingency, and Termite sections. Most notably, the RPA has a new larger Scope of Duty section designed to protect brokers. Paragraph 18, entitled "BROKERS," identifies compensation rights, sets parameters for scope of duty, and addresses the real estate professional's representative capacity.
Nevada's rule on the admissibility of expert witness testimony is codified in Nevada Revised Statute 50.275, which states that a qualified expert witness may testify as to matters within that expert's scope of knowledge, so long as such testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue. While the Nevada Legislature laid the foundation to allow expert testimony to be presented and granted judges the discretion as to whether to allow such testimony, it was not until Hallmark v. Eldridge (2008) 124 Nev. 492, that the Nevada Supreme Court gave further clarification on the factors judges were to consider when admitting expert testimony evidence.
Posted on October 7, 2014
Since 2007, maneuvering through the murky waters of government-backed mortgage-finance policies seemed to be nearly impossible for borrowers and real estate professionals alike. Whether you were seeking a short sale from your lender, or you were a borrower forced to endure the painful experience of foreclosure, the end result to your credit was the same. Eventually, real estate professionals were turning away most borrowers with a foreclosure, bankruptcy, short sale, or deed-in-lieu on their credit record. Homeowners with disparaging credit were advised that foreclosures and short sales can stay on a credit report for up to seven years, making it difficult (if not impossible) to qualify for a reasonable loan. Conversely, struggling homeowners were watching their homes decrease in value while trying to avoid foreclosure or short-sale alternatives.
Serving California’s Businesses and Individuals
Subscribe to our newsletter to receive important legal updates and the latest at Kring & Chung.
Bold labels are required.
Bold labels are required.
Irvine Office
38 Corporate Park
Irvine,
CA
92606
Phone:
949-345-1621
Fax:
949-261-8800
Irvine Law Office Map
San Diego Office
411 Camino del Rio South
Suite 105
San Diego,
CA
92108-3508
Phone:
949-345-1621
Phone:
858-436-0268
Fax:
858-436-0279
Map & Directions
Las Vegas Office
7575 Vegas Drive
Suite 150G
Las Vegas,
NV
89128
Phone:
949-345-1621
Phone:
702-260-9500
Fax:
702-260-9434
Map & Directions
