In Ram’s Gate Winery, LLC v. Roche, Ram’s Gate bought a Sonoma County property intending to build a new winery. The sellers (Roches) had agreed in the purchase agreement to disclose facts having a “material effect on the value of the ownership or use of the Property,” including geological hazards. After escrow closed, Ram’s […]
Court Liens Away From Coverage in Title Insurance Case
/by Peterson, Martin & Reynolds LLPMost real estate investors, and real property attorneys for that matter, think they know a lien when they see one. In a late December decision which was recently certified for publication (so it can now be cited as precedent in California), the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District reminded one and all […]
Damages for Wrongful Foreclosure Not Necessarily Limited to Lost Equity
/by Peterson, Martin & Reynolds LLPThe recent case of Miles v. Deutsche Bank involves the measure of damages for wrongful foreclosure. In 2005, plaintiff refinanced the loan on his home in Riverside with an adjustable rate mortgage serviced by HomeEq. Plaintiff made regular payments until the rate increased in 2007 and then sought a loan modification. In early 2008, HomeEq […]
Whether an Issue Is Arbitrable Is Determined Solely by Language in Arbitration Agreement
/by Peterson, Martin & Reynolds LLPThe Bunker Hill v. U.S. Bank case involved a rather dry, but nonetheless important issue which may have an impact on real-world situations: when arbitration may be compelled pursuant to an arbitration agreement between two parties, and more specifically, what kinds of issues may be arbitrated. Landlord Bunker Hill owned land in Los Angeles […]
No Duty to Disclose Claim of Easement to Prospective Purchaser of Adjacent Property
/by Peterson, Martin & Reynolds LLPThe Hoffman v. 162 North Wolfe case involved claimed prescriptive easements over commercial property in Sunnyvale. In March 2010, Hoffmans purchased property at 170 North Wolfe (“170”). At the time of the purchase, Hoffmans were tenants of 170 and were thus familiar with that property and the adjacent property at 162 North Wolfe (“162”). After […]
First District Court of Appeal Takes A Bit of the Bite Out of the Merger Doctrine
/by Peterson, Martin & Reynolds LLPIn Ram’s Gate Winery, LLC v. Roche, Ram’s Gate bought a Sonoma County property intending to build a new winery. The sellers (Roches) had agreed in the purchase agreement to disclose facts having a “material effect on the value of the ownership or use of the Property,” including geological hazards. After escrow closed, Ram’s […]
Actual Damage of Agricultural Property Needed for Award of Attorneys’ Fees in Trespass Case
/by Peterson, Martin & Reynolds LLPBelle Terre Ranch, Inc. v. Wilson (2015) 14 C.D.O.S. 371 The dispute in this case involved the interpretation of a law providing that when someone brings suit for trespass on agricultural, ranching or farming land and wins, the plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.9.) This law, passed […]
Defended food company in class action suit alleging false advertising
/by Peterson, Martin & Reynolds LLPRepresented limited partner in multi-million dollar claims against general partners and former lawyers
/by Peterson, Martin & Reynolds LLPDefended grocery store chain in breach of contract suit brought by food supplier
/by Peterson, Martin & Reynolds LLPRepresented inventor in defending trade secrets case
/by Peterson, Martin & Reynolds LLP