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.