I previously summarized a decision out of the California Court of Appeals, Fourth Appellate District, Fisher v. DCH Temecula Imports LLC, in which the court held that a consumer’s right to bring a class action under the California Legal Remedies Act (the “CLRA”) constitutes an unwaivable statutory right.  In this blog, I will discuss a parallel case from the California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co., LLC, that has been simultaneously working its way through the courts.  A review of my prior September 21, 2010 entry would be helpful to understanding this update: Unwaivable Right. Continue reading

Share This Post
Leave a comment

The City of San Luis Obispo is governed by a Charter adopted by the local voters. The provisions of the city’s Charter may be amended from time to time or repealed by subsequent votes of the voters. An amendment to the Charter may be proposed either by the City Council or by an initiative submitted to the City Council by the voters. Continue reading

Share This Post
Leave a comment

Employers who choose to include sabbaticals as part of their employee benefits must understand the implications of such a benefit upon an employee’s separation with the employer. Most employers know vested vacation must be paid to the employee upon separation, however, they do not realize sabbaticals may also qualify as vested vacation that must be paid to the employee upon separation. Continue reading

Share This Post
1 Comment

The continuing state budget crisis is being experienced locally to a greater extent.  Beginning October 7, some employees will be furloughed every Friday.  Although courthouses will be open on Fridays, services will be greatly reduced.  A few courtrooms will be open to tend to mandated hearings and criminal matters, domestic violence, elder abuse and civil harassment restraining orders involving stalking and/or threats of domestic violence. Continue reading

Share This Post
Leave a comment

The San Luis Obispo Superior Court announced changes to the services provided by the Court due to budget cuts and the need for additional furloughs. To see the full announcement visit the Court’s website at www.slocourts.net/announcements.

Share This Post
Leave a comment

Carmel & Naccasha, LLP seeks a senior associate or partner level attorney with 5+ years of experience in trust and estate law, tax planning, and business transactional work.  LLM in taxation, Certified Tax Specialist, Certified Specialist in Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Law, or CPA preferred.  Experience should include demonstrated excellence in:  estate planning, the administration of estates and trusts; and the tax implications inherent in this practice of law.  The candidate will have responsibility for structuring transactions and providing general tax counsel in connection with all forms of business entities.  The candidate should also have a strong ability to develop and maintain existing client relationships and the desire and ability to develop additional clients for the firm in these practice areas.  Competitive salary and benefit package.  Interested candidates should send a cover letter and resume to careers@carnaclaw.com.

Our attorneys have a broad range of legal experience and have practiced law locally and nationally.  The firm’s lawyers focus their practice and provide exemplary client services in the areas of business transactions, real property, land use, municipal law, commercial and employment litigation, taxation and tax controversies, trusts and estate planning, wine law and insurance coverage.

Share This Post
Leave a comment

In an effort to relieve the financial strain on the California court system,  Assembly Bill 110 has been signed into law.  This bill amends Government Code section 68926 regarding fees.  The primary change is that there is now a fee imposed on respondents in appellate and Supreme Court cases of $325 on first paper filings other than by appellants as well as by petitioners in write proceedings before the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.  The changes are effective immediately. Continue reading

Share This Post
Leave a comment

On August 18, 2011, a decision came down from the California Supreme Court in Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, No. S179115. This decision set a limit on the defendant’s liability for special medical damages and the amounts recoverable by a plaintiff. This means that, where a medical provider has accepted as full payment of his/her bill a lesser sum pursuant to a pre-existing contract with the injured person’s health insurer, only the amount actually paid will be recoverable as economic damages, not the larger amount originally billed. Continue reading

Share This Post
Leave a comment

In this blog, I’ll provide a simple explanation of California’s mortgage and anti-deficiency laws which allow individuals to walk away from their homes. In addition, I will touch on some of the issues that borrowers need to be aware of in making any sort of financial decision concerning their mortgage.

We’ve all heard that individuals and families today are “walking away from their mortgages” when their house is “underwater,” but many don’t know what this means. A house is “underwater” when its fair market value is less than the outstanding mortgage. Many individuals who are in this position see their mortgage payments producing no equity and feel it is imprudent to keep throwing good money after bad. Thus the question becomes, “Can I get out of this mess?” In answering this question a borrower must consider two primary considerations: 1) Is the lender foreclosing judicially or by trustee’s sale; and 2) is the loan a purchase money deed of trust?

Is the lender foreclosing judicially or by trustee’s sale?
California law allows lenders to foreclose on properties judicially (i.e. by filing a complaint with the court) or by power of sale (otherwise known as a trustee’s sale). The vast majority of foreclosures performed in California are by trustee’s sale. California law allows lenders who judicially foreclose on property the ability to seek a “deficiency” judgment, which is the amount of the outstanding mortgage less the fair value of the property. For example, if the outstanding mortgage is $350,000 and the fair market value of the property is currently $225,000, the deficiency judgment would be $125,000. If the lender forecloses judicially, the borrower is allowed to remain in possession and possibly redeem (“buy-back”) the property for up to one year after the foreclosure sale for the price the lender received at the foreclosure sale.

If, on the other hand the lender forecloses by trustee’s sale, California law statutorily prohibits the lender from seeking a deficiency judgment. However, under this foreclosure procedure, the borrower is likewise prohibited from redeeming the property or possession of the property. As you can see, the statutes work a “give and take” with lenders and borrowers.

Is the loan a purchase money deed of trust?
There are generally two kinds of purchase money deeds of trust which are subject to anti-deficiency laws. In the first, a note and deed of trust is executed by a buyer and payable to the seller for the purchase price of the home. This is generally known as “seller financing.” In the second, a note and deed of trust is given by a buyer to a third party lender (a bank) for part of the purchase price of an owner-occupied residential property containing four or fewer units. This is the more commonly understood method of financing.

Under California law, these two methods of financing prohibit the lender or seller from seeking a deficiency judgment. However, purchase money anti-deficiency protections could be lost if the loan is not a “standard” transaction, such as a construction loan or in some cases of refinancing.

How do these protections relate to people walking away from their homes?
Banks are generally unable to obtain deficiency judgments from foreclosures who walk away from their homes because the loans made were for purchase money. Because the bank cannot seek a deficiency, there is no reason for them to go through the more cumbersome process of judicial foreclosure. These individuals may walk away knowing that their lender can’t go after them for anything more than the property itself.

However, walking away will impact the borrower’s credit since the bank will eventually foreclose on the property. In addition, individuals need to be aware that these actions could trigger “cancellation of debt” income, which could mean that they would need to pay income taxes on the amount of debt that has been forgiven. Forgiveness of non-recourse debt is not subject to cancellation of debt income and the 2007 Mortgage Forgiveness Relief Act provides taxpayers with additional protections for up to $2 million dollars (expires in 2012). It is a good idea for homeowners to know exactly what kind of debt their mortgage represents before making any decision.

Before deciding to walk away, homeowners need to be aware of their options and understand their ramifications. We encourage all individuals who face any sort of mortgage difficulties to seek the assistance of an attorney who is experienced in the real estate field. By being informed, individuals can make their own path through the mess instead of allowing the path to make itself.

Jon Ansolabehere
jansolabehere@carnaclaw.com

Share This Post
Leave a comment

Taxes

Gov. Brown approved a new sales tax on July 7, 2011 that requires out-of-state companies to collect California state sales tax on purchases made online. California is one of many states implementing the new sales tax, and some online retailers are fighting back. For example, just hours after the bill was passed, Amazon terminated nearly 25,000 affiliate contracts in direct response to the bill. Continue reading

Share This Post
Leave a comment