Tag Archive for: case summary

Buyer’s Settlement With Agent Barred Seller’s Cross-Claims Against Agent

/by

Summary

In Fennessy v. Altoonian, the California Court of Appeals affirmed that when a real estate agent settles a lawsuit with a buyer in good faith, that settlement can block the seller from pursuing their own cross-claims against the agent—even claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The court ruled that if the seller’s claims are essentially seeking to recover for the same harm the buyer alleged, they are considered “derivative indemnity claims” and are barred by the agent’s good-faith settlement. This decision has significant implications for buyers, sellers and brokers when litigation arises from a purchase and sale transaction.

Background

The case stemmed from a home sale where the buyers, Kathryn and Christopher Fennessy, were told by the seller’s agent, Brook De Vincenzi, that the seller’s mother had died peacefully on the property. After the sale closed, the Fennessys discovered the death was actually a “gruesome, unnatural death by suicide.” They sued both the seller, Ronald Altoonian, and his agent, De Vincenzi, for claims including misrepresentation and failure to disclose.

In response, the seller, Altoonian, filed a cross-complaint against his own agent, De Vincenzi. Altoonian argued that if there was any wrongdoing, the agent was responsible and should have to indemnify him for any damages awarded to the buyers. He also brought direct claims against De Vincenzi for breach of their listing agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence.

Before trial, the agent, De Vincenzi, settled directly with the buyers. The agent then asked the court for a “good faith settlement determination,” a legal finding that protects a settling defendant from future claims for indemnity or contribution from other co-defendants in the same lawsuit. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed all of the seller’s cross-claims against the agent. The seller appealed that dismissal.

Key Court Findings

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision, finding that the good-faith settlement between the agent and the buyers effectively barred all of the seller’s cross-claims against the agent.

The central issue was whether the seller’s claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence were independent claims or simply disguised claims for indemnity. The seller argued they were independent because they arose from the duties the agent owed him under their listing agreement.

The court disagreed, focusing on the substance of the claims rather than their labels. It found that the seller’s claims were all “intertwined with” and derivative of the buyers’ original allegations. The seller’s cross-complaint essentially alleged that if the buyers’ claims of misrepresentation were true, it was because the agent had breached his duties. Therefore, the damages the seller sought were the same damages the buyers were seeking in the main lawsuit. 

Because these claims were, in effect, an attempt to shift responsibility for the buyers’ losses to the agent, they were considered claims for indemnity. Under California law, a good-faith settlement extinguishes such claims from co-defendants.

Key Takeaways for Brokers, Buyers, and Sellers

  • For Agents, Brokers and Sellers: A good-faith settlement with a plaintiff (e.g., a buyer) can be a powerful strategic tool during litigation. It not only resolves liability with the plaintiff but can also shield the settling defendant from subsequent cross-claims for indemnity or contribution from a co-defendant, such as the agent’s own seller-client, as was the case here.
  • For Sellers: This case serves as a caution. If you are sued alongside your agent and your agent settles, your ability to sue your agent for their role in the transaction may be limited or non-existent. Even direct claims like breach of the listing agreement can be barred if they are based on the same underlying facts and seek to recover for the same harm alleged by the buyer.
  • The “Derivative Claim” Doctrine is Critical: Courts will look past the name of a cause of action (e.g., “breach of fiduciary duty”) to its core purpose. If a seller’s claim against their agent is fundamentally an attempt to get the agent to cover the seller’s losses to a buyer, it will likely be treated as an indemnity claim and can be wiped out by a good-faith settlement.
  • Settlement Strategy Matters: This ruling highlights the importance of coordinated legal strategies in multi-party real estate litigation. A seller who believes their agent is at fault may need to act strategically before that agent settles independently with the buyer, as that settlement could close the door to recovery.

This decision clarifies the far-reaching impact of a good-faith settlement, emphasizing that it can provide a settling party with total peace from all parties involved in a dispute. For sellers, it also underscores the risk that their legal recourse against their own agent may be foreclosed if their claims are not truly independent of the harm alleged by the third-party plaintiff.

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. State: SB 9 Withstands Challenge from General Law Cities

/by

Summary

In City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. State, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 9 (SB 9), a state law requiring ministerial approval of certain housing developments in single-family zones. A group of general law cities challenged the law, arguing it illegally usurped their local control over land use. The court rejected this challenge, holding that the “municipal affairs doctrine,” which protects local autonomy, applies only to charter cities. Because the appellants were general law cities, they were subject to conflicting state laws on matters of statewide concern like housing.

Background

In 2021, the California Legislature enacted SB 9 to address the state’s housing crisis. The law requires cities to ministerially approve—that is, without discretionary review or public hearings—both the development of two-unit housing projects and the subdivision of urban lots within single-family residential zones. This effectively allows property owners to build up to four housing units on a parcel previously zoned for one.

Four general law cities—Rancho Palos Verdes, Lakewood, Paramount, and Simi Valley—sued the State of California, claiming SB 9 was unconstitutional. They argued the law improperly stripped them of their authority to regulate local land use, imposing a “one-size-fits-all” approach that ignored local conditions like fire risk and infrastructure capacity. 

They further alleged that SB 9 was not reasonably related to its stated goal of promoting affordable housing, as the law includes no affordability requirements for the new units created. The trial court ruled in favor of the state, and the cities appealed.

Key Court Findings

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, focusing on the fundamental legal distinction between general law cities and charter cities.

The court’s analysis began and ended with the cities’ status as general law cities. Under the California Constitution, the powers of general law cities are derived from state law, and their local ordinances are void if they conflict with state “general laws.” The court noted that while land use regulation is traditionally a local function, it is not immune from state preemption.

The cities attempted to argue that SB 9 illegally interfered with their “municipal affairs.” However, the court explained that the municipal affairs doctrine—also known as “home rule”—is a constitutional protection available exclusively to charter cities. 

This doctrine allows charter cities to maintain control over local matters, even in the face of conflicting state law, unless the issue is one of true statewide concern. Because the appellants conceded they were general law cities, they could not invoke this doctrine. Having failed to identify any other constitutional provision that SB 9 violated, their legal challenge collapsed.

Key Takeaways

  • City Status Is Critical: A city’s legal authority to resist state land use laws depends entirely on whether it is a general law city or a charter city.
  • General Law Cities Are Subordinate to State Law: When a state law addressing a matter of statewide concern (like housing) conflicts with a local ordinance from a general law city, the state law prevails.
  • The “Municipal Affairs Doctrine” Does Not Protect General Law Cities: The primary legal argument for local control over zoning and land use—the municipal affairs doctrine—is not available to general law cities.
  • SB 9 Remains Enforceable in General Law Cities: This ruling confirms the state’s power to enforce housing laws like SB 9 and limits the ability of general law cities to challenge them based on claims of usurped local authority.

This decision solidifies the State of California’s broad authority to legislate on housing matters and makes clear that general law cities possess limited power to defy state mandates in this area. It affirms that, absent a specific constitutional violation, the Legislature has the power to dictate land use policies to address issues it deems of statewide importance.

Lazar v. Bishop: Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims Against Realtor Were Assignable by Buyer 

/by

Summary

In Lazar v. Bishop, the California Court of Appeal resolved a pivotal question: whether a breach of fiduciary duty claim against a real estate broker could be assigned to another party. The court ruled that such claims are assignable when they pertain to property or pecuniary interests rather than highly personal or confidential relationships.

Laura Lazar, acting as the assignee of her late father Daniel Gottlieb’s rights, brought a lawsuit against real estate brokers Lynette Bishop, Shen Shulz, Sotheby’s International Realty, Inc., and Shen Realty, Inc., alleging breach of fiduciary duty during the sale of her father’s Malibu property. The court reversed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment, ruling that Lazar had standing to pursue the claim and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Background

In 2016, Daniel Gottlieb hired Lynette Bishop, a Sotheby’s International Realty agent, to sell his Malibu home, originally listed at $4.2 million. Over time, Bishop convinced Gottlieb to lower the price, eventually selling the home for $3.15 million to buyers represented by Shen Shulz, another Sotheby’s agent, creating an undisclosed dual agency situation. Gottlieb later assigned his claims to his daughter, Laura Lazar, before his death.

Lazar filed a lawsuit in 2019, alleging that Bishop breached fiduciary duties by:

  • Failing to disclose the dual agency arrangement before the sale was finalized.
  • Sharing Gottlieb’s willingness to accept lower offers with the buyers’ agent.
  • Failing to market the property effectively, resulting in a sale price nearly $2 million below the home’s purported value.

Lazar sought over $2.2 million in damages, including lost sale proceeds, commissions paid to the brokers, and costs incurred preparing the property for sale.

Key Court Findings

The California Court of Appeal addressed whether a breach of fiduciary duty claim against a real estate broker could be assigned and ruled that such claims are assignable when they involve property or financial interests. The decision clarified the distinction between personal, non-assignable claims and those tied to transactional relationships.

Assignability of Claims

  • The appellate court ruled that breach of fiduciary duty claims tied to property and pecuniary interests are assignable under California Civil Code §954.
  • The court emphasized that the fiduciary relationship between a real estate broker and a client is transactional and distinct from the deeply personal and confidential attorney-client relationship.

Policy Concerns Dismissed

The trial court had denied Lazar standing, citing concerns about encouraging commercialized litigation and burdening the real estate profession. The appellate court rejected these concerns, noting that the case involved monetary losses tied to property, not personal injuries or emotional harm.

Constructive Fraud and Fiduciary Breach

The court determined that Bishop’s actions, including failing to disclose the dual agency and improperly influencing Gottlieb’s pricing decisions, constituted constructive fraud, a breach of her fiduciary duty requiring full transparency and loyalty.

Timeliness of Appeal

Despite technical delays in filing, Lazar’s notice of appeal was deemed timely due to prompt corrective actions by her counsel.

Key Takeaways

  • Real Estate Fiduciary Claims Are Assignable: The ruling affirms that claims seeking monetary damages for breaches of fiduciary duty in real estate transactions can be assigned, as they are tied to property rights rather than personal relationships.
  • Importance of Transparency: Real estate brokers must disclose dual agency arrangements and act solely in their client’s interest to avoid liability.
  • Transactional Nature of Real Estate: The court’s decision underscores that real estate services are fundamentally tied to property and do not share the personal and confidential aspects of attorney-client relationships.

Citation

Lazar v. Bishop (2024) B321752, California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District

Beebe v. Wonderful Pistachios: California Court Lowers Causation Bar in Bird Droppings Lawsuit

/by

Background

In June 2023, the California Court of Appeal examined the proof needed to establish causation in toxic exposure cases, reversing a defense summary judgment in Beebe v. Wonderful Pistachios & Almonds LLC. The court held that the plaintiff had raised a triable issue of material fact through circumstantial evidence connecting his exposure to contaminated bird droppings in his workplace with his subsequent fungal infection.

The plaintiff, Dale Beebe, was an electrical foreman for Braaten Electric, Inc., a subcontractor hired by Potential Design, Inc. and its owner James Tjerrild (collectively “Potential Design”) for construction projects at a pistachio facility in Firebaugh, California owned by Wonderful Pistachios and Almonds LLC (“Wonderful”). For almost two years between 2012-2014, Beebe worked at Wonderful’s Firebaugh facility.

The Firebaugh facility was plagued by migrating flocks of swallows that nested under a pole barn-like structure and created extreme accumulations of bird droppings. Wonderful would periodically dry sweep or blow the droppings into the surrounding dirt using leaf blowers. In late 2015, over a year after completing work at the facility, Beebe was diagnosed with histoplasmosis, a fungal infection caused by inhalation of spores from the fungus Histoplasma capsulatum, which thrives in bird feces.

Beebe sued Wonderful and Potential Design for negligence, alleging their conduct regarding the bird droppings caused his illness. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no proof the droppings caused Beebe’s histoplasmosis. The trial court agreed, excluding Beebe’s expert declarations as speculative and granting summary judgment for the defendants.

The Court of Appeal reversed, finding Beebe had raised a triable issue of causation under California’s “substantial factor” test, which only requires a defendant’s conduct to be more than a negligible or theoretical cause. Though no soil testing definitively proved the droppings were contaminated, Beebe’s physician expert testified the San Joaquin Valley has a relatively high incidence of histoplasmosis. Other evidence showed the birds roosted at the site for years and Wonderful’s practices would disperse contaminated dust that Beebe inhaled while living and working onsite.

The court found Beebe’s circumstantial evidence analogous to the restaurant patron in Sarti v. Salt Creek who contracted food poisoning after eating raw tuna at a restaurant with unsanitary conditions likely causing cross-contamination. Though no testing proved the restaurant’s chicken carried the bacteria, the conditions permitted an inference of causation. Here, though testing did not confirm the droppings were contaminated, ample evidence supported causation under the substantial factor test.

The court underscored that property owners like Wonderful must handle toxic substances appropriately. By reversing summary judgment, the court opened the door for Beebe to prove at trial that Wonderful’s negligent handling of contaminated bird droppings caused his life-altering illness. 

Key Takeaways

  • The case involves a lawsuit brought by an employee who contracted a fungal infection, histoplasmosis, allegedly due to exposure to accumulated bird droppings at his workplace.
  • A key issue examined by the court was whether the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence of causation between his illness and the defendants’ conduct regarding the bird droppings.
  • The court held there was a triable issue of material fact as to causation based on the plaintiff’s expert testimony and circumstantial evidence connecting his exposure to contaminated bird droppings at his workplace to his subsequent infection.
  • Even without definitive scientific proof like soil testing, the court found the circumstantial evidence created a reasonable inference of causation under the “substantial factor” test.
  • The case illustrates the type of showing needed to establish causation in a toxic exposure case, including through expert testimony and circumstantial evidence.
  • A property owner or employer may be liable where sufficient evidence connects negligence in handling toxic substances like contaminated bird droppings to a plaintiff’s illness. 

Summary

In reversing summary judgment, the Beebe decision eased the causation burden for plaintiffs in toxic exposure cases, confirming that circumstantial evidence may be used to establish causation under California’s “substantial factor” test without definitive scientific proof. The court also found ample evidence to support a reasonable inference that the defendant’s negligent handling of contaminated bird droppings caused the plaintiff’s illness. This decision illustrates that property owners and employers must handle toxic substances appropriately or risk liability if their negligent actions are connected to resultant illnesses.

Blaylock v. DMP 250 Newport Center LLC: California Court Affirms Defense Judgment in Crawl Space Injury Case

/by

Background

In a closely watched decision issued in May 2023, the California Court of Appeal examined the merits of the concealed hazard exception to the Privette doctrine in the context of a workplace injury lawsuit. The court affirmed a defense judgment in favor of a property owner who had been sued by an HVAC technician injured after falling through an access panel in a commercial building’s crawl space. Travis Blaylock v. DMP 250 Newport Center, LLC, et al. demonstrates the heavy burden plaintiffs must meet under Privette to hold landowners liable for on-the-job injuries suffered by contractors’ employees.

The plaintiff, Travis Blaylock, was a project manager for Air Control Systems, Inc. (ACS), an HVAC contractor in southern California. In October 2018, Blaylock suffered serious injuries after falling approximately 10 feet through a plywood access panel while working in a cramped plenum crawl space at an office building in Newport Beach, California owned by DMP 250 Newport Center, LLC and managed by DMP Management, LLC (together, DMP). Blaylock had been dispatched to the crawl space to investigate an airflow issue for one of DMP’s tenants.

Blaylock accessed the crawl space through a door on the roof. He was using his cell phone flashlight to illuminate the dark, confined space between the roof and ceiling where the building’s HVAC ductwork was located. As Blaylock traversed the area, he stepped onto what appeared to be a plywood panel flush with the other sections of plywood covering parts of the crawl space “floor.” 

In actuality, the panel was covering an opening that provided access to the crawl space from a storage room one story below. Unaware that the panel was not meant to bear weight, Blaylock plunged through the opening and crashed onto the floor of the storage room, suffering severe injuries.

After his fall, it became clear the access panel was intended to allow entry into the crawl space from the storage area. Importantly, DMP had no involvement in the original design or construction of the building and denied having any knowledge of the panel or its hazardous nature. DMP only became aware of the access point because of Blaylock’s accident.

Blaylock sued DMP for premises liability and negligence, alleging the unmarked access panel constituted a concealed hazard. DMP moved for summary judgment, arguing that under California’s Privette doctrine, it could not be held liable for Blaylock’s on-the-job injury because he was working for an independent contractor over whom DMP exercised no control.

The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in DMP’s favor, finding no triable issues as to the concealed hazard exception set forth in Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659. Blaylock appealed.

The court of appeal affirmed, holding that Blaylock failed to demonstrate a triable issue because even if DMP should have known the access panel existed (based on its potential visibility from the storage room below), there was no evidence DMP actually knew or should have known the panel presented a hazard to HVAC workers inside the crawl space. The court reiterated the principle that under Privette, a landowner implicitly delegates responsibility for job safety to an independent contractor.

It is important to note that the court rejected Blaylock’s assertion that the inadequate lighting in the crawl space rendered the access panel a concealed hazard. The court stated it was incumbent on ACS, not DMP, to ensure proper illumination within the workspace. Further, had ACS workers conducted a reasonable inspection of the crawl space, they would have recognized that the access panel was unsafe to walk on since it was affixed to the bottom of the ceiling joists rather than resting atop them like the other sections of plywood flooring.

By holding that DMP had no actual or constructive knowledge of the hazardous condition from the perspective of those working in the crawl space, the Court underscored that when applying the concealed hazard exception, the property owner’s knowledge is paramount. The contractor’s ability to discover the danger through inspection is a secondary consideration.

Key Takeaways

  • The Blaylock case involves a workplace injury lawsuit brought by an HVAC technician who was injured after falling through an access panel in a crawl space while servicing an air conditioning system.
  • The court applied the Privette doctrine, which limits a property owner’s liability for on-the-job injuries sustained by employees of an independent contractor. Under this doctrine, the property owner is not liable if they do not retain control over the work.
  • There is an exception to the Privette doctrine when the property owner knows or should know of a concealed hazardous condition that the contractor does not know about and cannot reasonably discover.
  • The court found the access panel was not a concealed hazard because the lighting conditions were the contractor’s responsibility, and a reasonable inspection by the contractor would have revealed the unsafe nature of the panel.
  • The property owner did not know nor have reason to know the panel presented a hazard to the contractor’s employees. Therefore, the exception did not apply and the Privette doctrine shielded the property owner from liability.
  • The key issues were the defendant’s knowledge of the hazardous condition and whether it was concealed from the contractor. Since there was no evidence on these issues, summary judgment for the defendant was affirmed.

Summary

The Blaylock decision demonstrates that under California’s Privette doctrine, a property owner is generally not liable for injuries suffered by a contractor’s employee on a worksite unless the owner concealed a known hazardous condition. This premises liability case illustrates that to overcome the Privette rule of nonliability, an injured plaintiff must show the property owner actually knew of a hidden danger that the contractor could not have reasonably discovered through inspection.