In a unanimous decision by all seven Justices, the California Supreme Court held that in any action to enforce governing documents of a common interest development, the “prevailing party” is entitled to attorneys fees under Civil Code section 5975, even where plaintiffs fail to establish that a common interest development exists. Continue reading
The Pacific View Rights Center ad in Palisades News, the exiting new town paper.
The Pacific Palisades Civic League, the claimed guardian of Tract 9300, finally launched its own website: www.PPCL9300.org
Posted in PVRC News
Tagged business, civil litigation, Contract Disputes, Home Improvement, homeowners, insurance issues, mold claims, Neighbor v. Neighbor, real estate, real estate broker claims, title claims
By Keith Turner and Justin Escano
With all of its twists and turns, the Beglari case is an excellent example of just how difficult it can be to enforce Los Angeles building codes, even when multiple attorneys, retried judges, and high-end real estate are involved.
Posted in Court Cases, Local Laws & Ordinances, Neighbor v. Neighbor
Tagged Beglari Plaintiffs, Beglaries, City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning, Gov't Code section 36900, LADBS, LAMC, LAMC requirements, Los Angeles building codes, Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, Los Angeles Municipal Code section 12.07.01.C.1., Neighbor v. Neighbor
Property owners have more rights and power than they realize to stop McMansion; to object to a neighbor’s construction plans; and to otherwise challenge Department of Building & Safety decisions. Many homeowners in Los Angeles and elsewhere object to “McMansion,” which is the term used to describe new or remodeled large homes that are over-sized for the lot or incongruous for the neighborhood. If a homeowner is concerned about a neighbor’s construction project, they may have certain legal rights and claims, which they need to timely raise. Continue reading
A State Court of Appeal has affirmed a summary judgment in the continuing Castellammare litigation battle that pitted a homeowner against another neighbor and the local homeowners association…. Franzen was lead counsel in this case, and Palisades Attorney Keith Turner, who is of counsel to his office, worked extensively in the successful summary judgment. Mark Robertson, an associate with Franzen, worked on the Rochmans’ appellate briefs.
Real the full Palisadian Post article here.
The Court of Appeal issued its decision affirming summary judgment in the long standing Castellammare litigation. The action was filed in 2006 by Saied Kashani to challenge the Castellammare Homeowners Association’s requirement that he erect story poles to determine the impact his proposed 7,000 square foot home would have on the ocean and mountain views enjoyed by the neighbors. Kashani also sued the adjoining property owners Doreen and Jerry Rochman, and their son Harvey Rochman who also lives in Castellammare. Kashani claimed that the Rochmans used the influence and control as members of the Association Board to essentially deny his building plans. In essence, the court of appeal ruled that the Rochmans did nothing wrong and affirmed summary judgment against Kashani on all causes of action. This is an important ruling because it bears on what responsibilities directors of homeowners’ associations have to association members.
Posted in Court Cases, HOAs, Local Laws & Ordinances, Neighbor v. Neighbor, PVRC News
Tagged Castellammare Homeowners Association’s, Castellammare litigation, Court of Appeal, HOA Board Director, HOA Disputes, Homeowners Association Disputes, Homeowners Associations, Los Angeles, Neighbor v. Neighbor, Saied Kashani, summary judgement