Motion to Quash Cannot Be Used To Challenge Service of Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit

On November 23, 2015, the California Court of Appeal held that a residential tenant could not use motion to quash summons in unlawful detainer action to challenge the alleged defective service of a three-day notice to pay rent or quit.  As compared to service of summons, by which the court acquires personal jurisdiction, service of the three-day notice is not jurisdictional.  Rather, it is merely an element of an unlawful detainer cause of action that must be alleged and proven for the landlord to acquire possession. (Borsuk v. Appellate Division of the Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607)

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice.


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

California Court of Appeal Affirms Judgment In Favor of Union Bank

Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP successfully represented Union Bank in both the trial court and on appeal in a lawsuit filed by a borrower against the bank.  The borrower obtained a loan secured by a deed of trust against the borrower’s residence.  When the borrower failed to obtain homeowner’s insurance, the bank exercised its right under the deed of trust to obtain homeowner’s insurance at the borrower’s expense (known as force placed insurance).  The insurance covered losses sustained by the bank but not the borrower. The borrower alleged that his house suffered damage when a car hit a hydrant in front of the house.  The borrower alleged that he spent $130,000 to repair the damage and sued the bank and its insurance company to cover the alleged loss.  However, a month after the alleged incident, the borrower filed bankruptcy.  In his bankruptcy filings, the borrower never disclosed his claim that the bank owed him $130,000.  Further, the borrower denied the existence of any liquidated (certain) and unliquidated or contingent (uncertain) claims owed to him.  He denied any casualty loss (such as to his house) in the last year.  He denied the existence of any pending contracts (such as for home repairs).  The borrower’s list of accounts payable (money owed to creditors) did not list money owed for house repairs.  The borrower disclosed making payments to only two creditors (for mortgage payments, not house repairs) in the prior 60 days.  The borrower stated that he had only $750 cash on hand, no bank accounts, combined household income of $3,000 a month, and total annual income for the prior year of $35,674, yet unpaid debt of $644,578.  Thereafter, the bankruptcy court ordered discharge of the borrower’s debts. The borrower did not amend any of the information from his bankruptcy filing.  The bank filed a demurrer to the borrower's first amended complaint arguing, among other things, that case should be dismissed based on, among other reasons, the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which precludes “a party from assuming a position in a legal proceeding inconsistent with one previously asserted.”  The trial sustained the abnk's demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the case.  The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in favor of the bank. (See, Manookian v. Union Bank et. al, California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One).  

Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP Attends Laura's House Gala

Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP attended the Laura's House Gala held at the Island Hotel in Newport Beach, CA on October 10, 2015..Laura's House provides services to victims of domestic violence.  Further information concerning Laura's House is available at https://www.laurashouse.org.

Cap On Attorney's Fees In Lease Is Enforceable

On September 15, 2015, the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that a lease provision capping attorneys fees and costs is enforceable. The lease provision provided as follows: “In any legal action brought by either party to enforce the terms of this LEASE, the prevailing party shall be entitled to all costs, reasonably incurred in connection with that action, limited to no more than five hundred dollars ($500.00). In addition, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney fees, limited to no more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00).” The tenant prevailed in an unlawful detainer action and sought an award of attorneys fees from the landlord in the amount of $12,375.00.  The trial court granted the tenant's request. The landlord appealed.  The Appellate Division of the Superior Court reversed the trial court's decision and held that the tenant could not recover more than $750.00 in attorney's fees. (See, 511 S. Park View, Inc. v. Tsantis (2015) 240 Call.App.4th Supp. 44)

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 

© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP Participates In The Western National Property Management 20th Annual Leadership Conference and Vendor Expo

Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP was delighted to participate in the 20th Annual Leadership Conference and Vendor Expo held by Western National Property Management at The Hilton Anaheim on Friday, September 25, 2015.

Tenant May Be Evicted Due To Failure to Obtain Renters Insurance

On October 1, 2015, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California held that a landlord may evict a tenant for failing to obtain renters insurance required by the lease, regardless of whether the breach was material, where the lease provides that “any failure of compliance or performance by Renter shall allow Owner to forfeit this agreement and terminate Renter's right to possession”. (See, Boston, LLC v. Juarez, 2015 WL 5771040)

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

Los Angeles Superior Court To Start Hearing Unlawful Detainer Actions In Pomona Courthouse

Effective as of September 21, 2015, the Los Angeles Superior Court is expanding limited jurisdiction unlawful detainer actions from seven to eight courthouses. In addition to the other seven Los Angeles courthouses that hear unlawful detainer actions, the Superior Court will start hearing unlaful detainer actions at the Pomona Courthouse South located at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766.

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Throws Out Lawsuit Seeking To Require Los Angeles to Reopen Closed Courthouses

Since 2000, the County of Los Angeles has closed 20 of 58 courthouses. Landlord-tenant and eviction matters were consolidated into five hub courts, which was subsequently extended to seven courts. Non-profit groups argued that the court closings adversely impacted indigent tenants who had difficulty traveling to and from court. In some instances, it might take a tenant two hours on a bus each way to attend a court hearing. The federal court ruled that it did not have the power to substitute its judgment for that of the state courts in allocation of the state court's resources.

Landlord-Tenant And Small Claims Cases From The Victorville District Will Be Filed And Heard In The Barstow District Court

The Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino has issued a new notice.  Effective as of October 13, 2015, all small claims and landlord-tenant filings from the Victorville  District will be filed and heard in the Barstow District Court located at 235 East Mountain View, Barstow, CA 92311; Telephone Number (760) 718-3734.

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP to Participate in U.S. REO Partners Webinar on Post-Foreclosure Evictions and Homeowner Association Liens

Partner Earl R. Wallace is honored to speak at a webinar hosted by the U.S. REO Partners concerning post-foreclosure evictions and homeowner association liens to be held on September 3, 2015.

Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP Participates In The California Apartment Association Rental Housing Conference and Expo

The law firm participated in the CAA Conference and Expo held on August 27, 2015 at the Anaheim Convention Center.  The conference featured over 150 exhibitors.

Landlord May Amend Unlawful Detainer Complaint At Trial Without Delaying Case

If the landlord's unlawful detainer complaint contains an error, it does not mean that the tenant wins. Quite to the contrary, the landlord may simply amend the complaint according to proof at trial. In other words, the landlord can make a verbal request that the court amend the complaint based on the evidence presented by the landlord. As long as the evidence establishes that the tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer, the landlord will prevail. The tenant is not entitled to a continuance as a result of the amendment. (See, Code of Civil Procedure section 1173)

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

City of Richmond Enacts Rent Control and Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance

On August 5, 2015, the City of Richmond passed a rent control and just cause for eviction ordinance.  (Ordinance No. 21-15 N.S. , Richmond Municipal Code, Chapter 11.100 et. seq.) The ordinance becomes effective September 4, 2015.  A copy of the ordinance is available from the City of Richmond’s website at: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/6688.  A fact sheet is available here: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/35263.

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

City of Santa Monica Prohibits Landlords From Refusing To Accept HUD Section 8 Vouchers

On May 12, 2015, the City of Santa Monica passed ordinance number 2485 prohibiting landlords from refusing to accept HUD Section 8 vouchers.  This law only affects tenancies in the City of Santa Monica.  In California, landlords are not required to participate in the HUD Section 8 voucher program unless the City or County in which the premises are located has enacted an ordinance to the contrary. (See, Sabi v. Sterling (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 916)

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

Effective January 5, 2015, Two Additional Los Angeles Courthouses Hear Unlawful Detainer Actions

Effective January 5, 2015, Los Angeles Superior Court expanded limited jurisdiction unlawful detainer operations from five to seven courthouses.  Eviction cases are currently heard at the following locations in the County of Los Angeles: (1) Norwalk Courthouse, 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk CA 90650, (2) Van Nuys Courthouse, 6230 Sylmar Avenue, Van Nuys, CA 91401, (3) Governor George Deukmejian (Long Beach) Courthouse, 275 Magnolia, Long Beach CA 90802, (4) Michael D. Antonovich (Antelope Valley) Courthouse, 42011 Fourth Street West, Lancaster, CA 93534, (5) Pasadena Courthouse, 300 East Walnut, Pasadena, CA 91101, (6) Santa Monica Courthouse, 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401, and (7) Stanley Mosk Courthouse, 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

How long does it take after an eviction trial for a Sheriff lockout to occur?

Answer: Approximately 7 to 10 days. The process is as follows: After the court enters a judgment for possession of real property, the landlord may obtain a writ of possession from the court clerk by submitting a written request and paying $25. The writ of possession is then forwarded to the Sheriff along with Sheriff's instructions and a $145 fee. The Sheriff then posts a notice on the premises giving the occupants 5 days to vacate. If the occupants fail to vacate within the 5 day period, the Sheriff will conduct a lockout and place the landlord in peaceful possession of the premises. At the time of the lockout, the Sheriff will provide the landlord with a receipt for possession of the premises.

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

In an eviction action for non-payment of rent, is the landlord required to prove that the tenant actually received the Three Day Notice To Pay Rent Or Quit?

Answer: No. It is enough that the landlord properly served a Three Day Notice To Pay Rent Or Quit in accordance with applicable law (i.e. by personal service, substitute service, or nail and mail). The landlord is not required to prove that the tenant actually received the notice. On the other hand, proof that the tenant actually received the notice cures any defect in service of the notice. These principles are also applicable to other types of notices that may be served by a landlord such as notices to perform covenant or quit, notices to quit, and notices of termination of tenancy.

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

Does a landlord need to serve a Proof of Service along with a Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit?

Answer: No. The landlord is not required to serve a Proof of Service along with a Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit. However, after the notice is served, the person serving the notice should complete and sign a Proof of Service. If an eviction action becomes necessary, then the landlord can present the Proof of Service at the trial as a business record to establish the date and manner of service. Although technically not required, submitting a Proof of Service at trial is the standard practice and expected by the Court.

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

Foreclosing Lender Required To Attempt to Ascertain Identity of Any Tenants Occupying Foreclosed Real Property

Court holds that a foreclosing lender may potentially be liable to for interference with the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment where the lender failed to take steps to ascertain the identity of any tenants, never asked for a copy of the lease, never determined whether the tenants had the right to continue occupying the property, and unreasonably failed to inform or misinformed the police as to the tenants’ right to occupy the premises, which resulted in tenants being prevented by the police from accessing the property. (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. (2014) 223 CA4th 261)

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

Government Notice to Vacate Due To Substandard Conditions Does Not Terminate Lease

A property deemed “substandard” under the State Housing Law does not affect a tenant’s rights under the tenancy. Thus, where the enforcing agency posts a code enforcement notice—or “red-tag”—requiring that the property be vacated due to its “substandard” condition, the tenancy survives the red-tagging and the lease is not terminated. (Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing (2014) 226 CA4th 1281)

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

Bankruptcy Case Filed After Entry of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction) Judgment Does Not Stay Sheriff Lockout

In cases filed on and after October 17, 2005, a tenant's bankruptcy filing does not stay eviction under an unlawful detainer judgment obtained before the filing with respect to residential property in which the tenant debtor resides as a tenant under a lease or rental agreement. (11 USC § 362(b)(22))

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

Initial Term of HUD-VASH Section 8 Voucher Tenancy Can Be Less Than One Year

Under the HUD Section 8 Voucher Program, the initial term of the lease is generally required to be at least one year. However, this requirement does not apply to the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program. The HUD-VASH program combines Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) rental assistance for homeless Veterans with case management and clinical services provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). VA provides these services for participating Veterans at VA medical centers (VAMCs) and community-based outreach clinics. To provide a greater range of housing opportunities for HUD–VASH voucher holders, initial leases may be less than 12 months.

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

Tenant Under Expired Lease Cannot Require Return of Security Deposit as a Condition of Surrendering Possession of Real Property

Upon expiration of the term of a lease, the tenant is required to vacate and surrender possession of the premises to the landlord (unless the lease provides otherwise such as where the lease contains an automatic renewal provision). A tenant cannot require return of the security deposit as a condition of surrendering possession of the premises. The landlord is entitled to 21 days after the tenant vacates to account for the security deposit and return any unused portion. (See, Civil Code section 1950.5) If the tenant fails to surrender possession of the premises upon expiration of the term, the landlord is entitled to file an unlawful detainer (eviction) action against the tenant without further notice to recover possession of the premises, holdover damages (the daily fair market rental value for each day the tenant remains in possession of the premises), court costs and, if the lease contains an attorney’s fee provision, reasonable attorney’s fees.

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

Foreclosure Purchaser Must Remedy Habitability Defects.

The purchaser at foreclosure sale becomes the new landlord of the existing tenant and is obligated to remedy habitability issues. (See, Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 1281, 1295) The Court of Appeal stated: “We point out that new owners of rental property are required to address outstanding code violations even if they were caused by the previous owner of the property.

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

Can a rent increase notice be served by email?

No. For residential tenancies, the notice may be hand delivered or served by first class U.S. mail. (See, Civil Code § 827) If served by mail, the notice must bear “a notation of the date and place of mailing or be accompanied by an unsigned copy of the affidavit or certificate of mailing.” (See, Code of Civil Procedure § 1013) Also, mailing via first class U.S. mail adds 5 days to the notice. (See, Code of Civil Procedure § 1013)

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

How much is required to increase the rent for a month-to-month tenant of residential property?

The landlord is required to provide a minimum of 30 days' prior written notice if the increase is 10 percent or less of the rental amount charged to the tenant at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase. If the increase is more than 10 percent of the rental amount charged to the tenant at any time during the 12 months prior to the effective date of the increase, 60 days prior written notice is required. (See, Civil Code § 827)

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

Additional Google Plus Link:

      Google+

Eviction Instructions – Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department

Due to an increase in issues arising from eviction cases throughout the State of California, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department has revised its eviction instructions to assist with threat assessment, relocation, access and entry issues. The new form requires landlords to provide detailed information regarding the identity of the occupants of the property. The new form is mandatory for all evictions commencing April 1, 2015.

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

Foreclosure Notice of Default Signed By Company "As Trustee" Before It Became Trustee is Valid

In a published opinion dated February 6, 2015, the California Court of Appeal held that a notice of default signed by Aztec Foreclosure Corporation (Aztec) "as trustee" before Aztec was substituted in as the trustee under the deed of trust was valid. The Court of Appeal rejected the borrower’s argument that failure of the original trustee to sign the notice of default "broke the chain of recorded title rendering all subsequent foreclosure proceedings, including the trustee’s sale, void and of no effect." Even if Aztec lacked authority to sign the notice of default as trustee at the time it took this action, Aztec’s authority was subsequently ratified by the lender when it formally named Aztec as trustee several weeks later. (Ram v. Onewest (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1)

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

Orange County Appellate Court Affirms Post-Judgment Order Substituting Plaintiff In Eviction Action

On January 29, 2015, the Orange County Superior Court Appellate Department upheld a post-judgment order substituting (changing) the plaintiff in a post-foreclosure unlawful detainer judgment. Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP successfully represented the plaintiff in the trial and appellate court proceedings.

Another Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin Client Prevails in Jury Trial

In Alcone v. Valbuena, Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represented the plaintiff in an unlawful detainer action based on expiration of a lease term.  The tenants, who were renting a multi-million dollar residence, contended that the tenancy had been extended pursuant to the agreement of the parties or, alternatively, the landlord had accepted rent after expiration of the term thereby creating a month-to-month tenancy.   The jury decided otherwise awarding the landlord possession of the premises, rental holdover damages in the amount of $77,999.66, attorney’s fees and costs. The case involved complicated legal issues relating to rescission.

Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 Expires

The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (“PTFA”) Sunsets. The PTFA took effect on May 20, 2009. The PTFA allowed bona fide tenants of foreclosed properties to continue occupying the property for 90 days following receipt of a notice to vacate or for the remainder of the tenant’s lease, whichever time period was longer.  The law was originally scheduled to expire on December 31, 2012, but was extended to December 31, 2014.  Many states, including California, have passed similar laws that remain in effect. (See, Code of Civil Procedure section 1161b).

For further information, please contact Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP at (949) 748-3600; website: www.rwclegal.com. 

The law firm of Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP represents landlords, property management companies, institutional and private lenders, employers and insurance companies throughout the State of California in real estate, business and employment litigation. The information provided herein is for general interest only and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice. 


© 2015 Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP.

 

Building Trusted, Long-Term Relationships

Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP is a California firm that specializes in real estate, employment, and business litigation at the trial court and appellate levels. We have offices in Irvine and Santa Ana conveniently located near the major governmental and court buildings of Orange County, the third most populous county in California and a major hub of this state’s economic activity.

Most of the firm’s cases are in federal and state courts in California, but our attorneys have also handled actions before various administrative agencies. Our attorneys have earned a strong reputation as expert litigators in the areas of real estate, employment and business law, including class action representation and defense.

In addition to providing comprehensive litigation services, the firm also assists clients through training and counseling, drafting transactions, advising on changes of law, and resolving disputes through negotiated settlement, mediation, and arbitration.

It is our hope that every encounter with Ruzicka, Wallace & Coughlin, LLP will be exceptional. Our practice is rooted in your success. We aim to identify your objective and build practical ways to reach your desired outcome. Our firm is also dedicated to continuous improvement in our services and processes, while encouraging growth and learning.

Please explore this website for information about the firm’s lawyers and our practice.