During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Real Property

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Under the rule announced in Muktarian v. Barmby (1965) 63 Cal.2d 558, the statute of limitations does not start to run on a quiet title action so long as the plaintiff remains in possession of the premises, even if plaintiff is aware of conflicting claims against the property, so long as the conflicting claims are not pressed against him.  In … Read More

When a married couple uses community funds to acquire property with joint tenancy title, the property is presumptively held as community property if acquired after January 1, 1975.  (See Fam. Code 760.)  The spouses hold joint tenancy interests in property acquired before 1975 as separate property.  For joint tenancy property acquired between January 1, 1975, and December 31, 1984, the… Read More

Under Nev. Rev. Stat. 116.3116, a homeowner's association is allowed a superpriority lien for certain HOA dues and maintenance expenses.  This decision holds that the statute does not offend the US Constitution's Takings Clause since no governmental entity takes the value of liens subordinated to the HOA's superpriority lien.  It also holds that the statutory notice of foreclosure sent by… Read More

Defendant entered into a 10-year lease with an automatic 10-year renewal before the prior owner of the building sold it to MES.  Even though defendant's lease was not recorded, MES took subject to the lease since it had actual knowledge of the lease before it bought the building.  (Civ. Code 1217.)  Since the lease was a conveyance expressly made effective… Read More

Before enactment of Civ. Code 1009(b) in 1972, an offer to dedicate private land to public use could be implied by law when the public used the land openly and continuously, as if the users believed the public had a right to do so, without objection by the landowner.  This decision affirms a decision denying a claim to quiet title… Read More

Plaintiff alleged that before he entered into a HELOC in 2005, the lender orally promised him that its maturity in ten years, the lender would refinance the loan or extend its term.  The lender didn't and foreclosed instead when the plaintiff didn't repay all amounts due at maturity of the loan.  Held:  (1) The statute of frauds barred plaintiff's breach… Read More

Plaintiffs bought some real property from Guillermo Guerrero.  LBS had recorded an abstract of judgment against the same person but under the name Wilbert G. Guerrero.  This decision holds that plaintiffs, who had no actual knowledge of LBS' judgment lien also had no constructive knowledge of the lien since a regular search of the grantor-grantee indices for the name under… Read More

Under Gov. Code 66498.1,  a local agency’s approval of a vesting tentative map confers upon a developer the right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the time the vested tentative map is approved.  Here, the city approved the developer's vesting tentative map before its citizens passed an initiative measure that… Read More

Under Civ. Code 2924.15, HBOR's provisions apply only to owner-occupied properties.  But the section goes on to define "owner-occupied" as property that is the borrower's principal residence and security for a loan made for consumer purposes.  This decision reads the definition literally, holding that so long as the property is the borrower's principal residence, HBOR's provisions apply even if the… Read More

As a condition of subdivision map approval and an encroachment permit in 1989, Prout agreed to dedicate to the state a 20 foot-wide strip of land along the side of his subdivision-to-be where it abutted a public highway, so he could not later sue for inverse condemnation when CalTrans used the strip to expand the adjoining highway two decades later. Read More

1 2 3 6