Publications Archives

By: Roland J. Amundsen

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 10, 2015

By: Lance A. Adair

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?

Posted on January 9, 2015

By: Melissa Bright

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.

By: Anna Greenstin Kudla

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.