|
Ask Mike
The information contained in the ASK MIKE column is
provided for general information purposes only and is not intended to be a legal opinion
nor legal advice nor is it intended to be a complete discussion of all issued related to
the law. No attorney client relationship shall be deemed to arise hereunder. Every
individual's factual situation is different and you should seek independent legal advice
regarding specific situations. All information contained within pertains only to
California law unless otherwise noted.
Adjoining Property Owners
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3
Question 4
Question #1
Question:
The branches of my neighbor's eucalyptus trees hang over my yard and drop leaves onto my
lawn. It makes a mess and he refuses to do anything about it. I'm also worried that the
trees could crash onto my property during strong Santa Ana winds. What can I do?
Answer:
As a general rule, you have the right to cut back the branches of your neighbor's trees to
the property line without filing suit or going to court. Of course, you would have to this
at your own cost.
If that doesn't solve your problem, you can go to court to seek an injunction allowing you
to trim beyond your property line or remove the trees. You might argue that the trees are
a nuisance or that they are so large and overhanging that they might fall during a
windstorm and damage your property. Either argument might convince the court to allow you
to remove or cut back the trees.
On the other hand, if a tree does fall and cause property damage, your neighbor is liable
if he failed to properly maintain the tree.
You didn't sat exactly where the trees are located. If the trees sit smack on your common
property line, they belong to the adjoining property owners and can't be cut down without
permission of both owners or a court ruling. You still have the right to cut the branches
back to the property line, but don't touch the roots or the trunk without a court ruling
on your side.
Question
#2
Question:
One day, my new next-door neighbor started tearing down the fence between our
yards. It turns out he'd done a property survey and discovered that the fence -
originally erected in 1924 - was not on the property line, which is actually two feet
farther over on my property. He plans to tear down full-grown trees and shrubbery
that make my backyard a wonderful refuge and put a new fence on the actual property
line. Is there anything I can do? I've heard that something called an agreed-upon
boundary doctrine might help me.
Answer:
Unfortunately, it does not appear that the agreed-upon boundary doctrine will come to
your rescue. This legal provision allows two parties to agree on a mutually
acceptable property line when it cannot be determined. For instance, if a lot once
had a single owner and the legal descriptions written when the property was divided
overlap, the two owners can designate an acceptable boundary. This doctrine cannot be used
when the property line can be objectively determined, as it apparently can in your
case. I suggest you consult your own attorney and consider proposing some kind of
compromise with your neighbor.
Question #3
Question:
I live in a neighborhood with very
small lots. Because I was planning on adding a deck to my home, I did a survey of my
property. I was surprised to discover that my next-door neighbor's garage juts over my
property line by a couple of feet. Should I ignore it or could I lose rights to that part
of my property if I don't take action? The neighbor and I are on fairly good terms and I
haven't said anything yet.
Answer:
It would be smart to address this
issue now, since you indeed could lose the right to that part of your property if you know
about the problem and ignore it for years. On the other hand, it doesn't sound as if you
want to make your
neighbor tear down the garage for lack of a few feet of dirt.
Since you are on good terms with your neighbor, your first step might be to try to
negotiate a mutually acceptable solution with the help of an attorney. The attorney will
take a look at the situation and recommend whether you and
your neighbor might do a lot line adjustment or a permanent easement. You would typically
seek a payment in exchange for granting an adjustment or an easement. If you approach this
with a cooperative attitude, you and your
neighbor might be able to resolve this situation with a legally binding agreement.
If you can't reach agreement, you can file a lawsuit. The courts will balance the rights
of both parties, determining the hardship of requiring the garage owner to remove it
versus the harm to you of allowing the garage to remain. The court might consider, for
instance, whether the encroachment was intentional and how much of your land is involved.
If it would cost the garage owner a disproportionate amount of money to tear it down while
it wouldn't really interfere with much of your land to let the garage remain, the court
might grant a permanent easement across your property and award you money damages to
compensate you for that loss.
Of course there's no way to predict the outcome of a lawsuit, so a negotiated settlement
that satisfies both you and your neighbor probably would be preferable. It also would
allow you to continue your neighborly relationship with no hard feelings.
Question #4
Question:
I don't get along with a next-door neighbor whose yard is a mess. I've asked him
repeatedly to clean it up, but he won't cooperate. We don't have a homeowners association
I can complain to. Can I put up a fence so I don't have to look at his yard any more?
Answer:
As a general rule, a property owner has an absolute right to put up a fence along the
property boundary or anywhere within his own property. The neighbor would have no grounds
to complain. But you do need to be aware of the rule against "spite fences."
A spite fence is defined as any structure like a fence which unnecessarily exceeds 10 feet
in height and which has been erected maliciously or for the purpose of annoying or
harassing a neighbor. The offending structure doesn't have to be an actual fence. It could
be a high hedge or it could be a low fence upon which foliage has been allowed to grow
higher than 10 feet. A spite fence would be considered a nuisance and could lead to legal
action by your neighbor.
Even a lower fence can be considered a spite fence. In one case, a property owner built a
structure with a huge dirt and concrete foundation, a wall and an ugly fence, all reaching
a height of less than 10 feet. The owner also committed other acts of harassment,
including trespassing and destroying the neighbor's flower bed, moving full garbage cans
under the neighbor's dining room window, and stringing clanging tin can lids along the
property line to keep the neighbor awake at night. The court found that the purpose of the
fence was not to screen the property but to increase the stakes in a campaign of
harassment against the neighbor.
The bottom line is that if you put up an attractive fence no more than 10 feet in height
and don't take any other actions against your neighbor, you are within your rights. In
your case, it might be an easy solution to an
annoying situation.
|
Do you want to send a question to Mike?
|
|
Previous Ask Mike Answers:
|
Limited Liability Company
In recent years Limited Liability Companies (LLC) have become widely used in California. The California Limited Liability Company Act became effective September 30, 1994. The Act is found in the California Corporations Code sections 17000 through 17705. The best definition of an LLC is a hybrid of a partnership and a corporation in which the members have limited personal liability. The members of a LLC are similar to shareholders of a corporation or partners of a partnership, depending on the management structure of the LLC.
The primary reason for creating an LLC is that it combines the corporate characteristics of limited liability for all members, while permitting the members to actively and generally participate in the management and operation of the business with the benefit of "pass through" tax treatment of a partnership. The "pass through" tax treatment is considered an important advantage because earnings passed through the corporation are in effect taxed twice. First, the corporation is taxed on its own income and then when it distributes earnings to its shareholders, the shareholders are then taxed again. A properly formed LLC is not taxed as an entity but rather the members are taxed one time on the earnings from the LLC.
The LLC is formed by the filing of articles of organization by one or more members with the Secretary of State. Once the Secretary of State receives the filing, the LLC is considered formed. It is an entity capable of buying, selling and encumbering interests in real property in its own name and can be dealt with, in that capacity, much in the same manner as a corporation or partnership. In general, LLCs are formed as "member managed" or "manager managed". The type of management will be set forth in the articles of organization. When title is being insured into or out of an LLC, the Title Company will ask for a copy of the articles for examination to determine the type of management and the parties who will have authority to execute documents on behalf of the LLC.
|
|
Bankruptcy and Judgement Liens
A bankruptcy alone does not eliminate an abstract of judgement as a real property lien.
One of the most commonly misunderstood facts about bankruptcy is the effect of discharge upon judgement liens.
Common scenario:
Your seller has an abstract of judgement recorded against him, he has recorded a homestead and filed a petition for bankruptcy. The seller has listed the judgement lien creditor in the bankruptcy and an order has been entered discharging the seller from his debts.
Immediately it is believed that the debt was discharged in the bankruptcy. A debtors discharge in bankruptcy eliminates the debtors personal liability for the judgement. This means the creditor can't pursue collection from the debtor, personally, provided the judgement is a dischargeable debt, but it does not extinguish the judgement lien from the property and can be enforced by execution sale.
Under the bankruptcy code, one course of action that may be taken in order to remove the lien from said property is for the debtor to petition the court for an order "avoiding the judgement lien". If said order is granted, the judgement lien is avoided and the property on which the lien attached cannot be sold at execution sale in an enforcement of the judgement.
|
|
Mobile Housing Units and Alta Endorsement Form 7
When a lender requests insurance on property which contains a manufactured housing unit (mobile home) They often require Alta Endorsement Form 7.
This endorsement provides an insured lender with assurance that the manufactured housing unit (mobile home) located on the land is included within the policy definition of "land".
Lenders request said endorsement since Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) has indicated that it will generally accept a title policy with an ALTA Endorsement form 7 attacheä as sufficient proof that the mobilehome is real property.
The usual guidelines followed for issuing said endorsement are as follows:
First, you must determine that the mobilehome has been converted to real property pursuant to Health and Safety Code 18851 and the record reflects the existence of a Health and Safety Department (HSD) document in compliance therewith, describing the real property, the name of the owner(s) of the real property, and stating that a particular mobilehome has been affixed thereto.
Second, an inspection of said property must be made confirming the foregoing.
Third, determine the mobilehome is free and clear of personal property liens.
Fourth, determine that mechanics lien priority is not an issue.
Fifth, determine that the lender's mortgage ( or other loan documentation) identifies the mobilehome with sufficient particularity.
Generally, there is no charge for issuing said endorsement.
|
|
Facts About Bankruptcy
Many times the subject of bankruptcy seems baffling in its complexity. Actually the basic principals of bankruptcy are fairly simple even though the federal status on bankruptcy are extensive. The reason that the statutes are so complex is because in as effort at social engineering, the lawmakers want to cover every possible contingency. The very complexity of the Bankruptcy Code gives the lawyers ample opportunity to try to obtain interpretation of the law which best serves their clients interest. This results in extensive litigation and occasionally in interpretations of the Code which were not what legislature intended. This on turn results in additional legislation, which results in additional litigation and on and on. Nevertheless, the underlying principals are not as complex as the Code makes them seem. Here we will discuss the personal nature of bankruptcy.
The concept of bankruptcy is an old one in the English common law. If a person could not pay his debts, his creditors hauled him into court, took all of his assets, and used those assets to satisfy their debts. If the assets were insufficient to satisfy the debts, the debtor was taken from the bankruptcy court to debtors prison. Since this is a rather extreme remedy, Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives the Congress the right to establish "….uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States."
As the popularity of debtors prison declined, the concept of giving the debtor a fresh start became one of the primary purposes of the bankruptcy process. It is important to remember that a bankruptcy is a personal action which at time of discharge gives the petitioner (formerly the debtor) a fresh start. The property owned by the petitioner does not get the fresh start, the individual does.
The fact that bankruptcy is a personal action may shed some light on the effect of a homestead in a bankruptcy proceeding. The bankruptcy code acknowledges the validity of homesteads. A homestead is a personal exemption which, in an effort to preserve a person's home, protects a certain amount of an individual's equity in the homestead property. State law determines the extent and effect of a homestead. Thus, if state law says that a person can declare a homestead up to $75,000 and if there is less than $75,000 equity in the property, that equity in the property, that equity is protected by the homestead. This principal operates without regard to the Federal Bankruptcy Code.
|
|
Differences in Types of Bankruptcy
When a petition for bankruptcy is filed, it is as if the petitioner is saying to the bankruptcy court, "Here are all of my possessions, you figure it out." This is called a chapter 7 bankruptcy. (Chapter 11 and Chapter 13 bankruptcies involve the petitioner creating a plan to pay the creditor's back, and are a different breed of cat.) A trustee is appointed to represent the petitioners creditors and divvy up the petitioners assets among those creditors. If a states homestead law says that a certain amount of the petitioner's equity in his home cannot be used to satisfy certain debts, the trustee cannot use that equity to pay off creditors. The court is in no better position than the creditors would be. Thus, when the trustee allows the exemption of the petitioner's property, the trustee is saying that whatever equity the petitioner has in his home is protected by the petitioners declaration of homestead. If state law allows a $75,000 homestead, the exemption is $75,000. If the state has a $50,000 limit, the exemption is limited to $50,000 and so on.
The trustee also has the right to determine that a piece of property has too many liens or encumbrances. In this case, the trustee can abandon the property. If the property is exempt or abandoned, it is no longer subject to the bankruptcy, although the petitioner may still benefit from the protection of the automatic stay which prevents anyone from bringing an action against a petitioner while the bankruptcy proceeding is pending.
After the petitioner's property has been divided among the petitioner's creditors, and those debts which can be satisfied have been satisfied, the petitioner is discharged. This means that the creditors cannot look to the petitioner for payment of any remaining debts. This discharge of the petitioner has nothing to do with the petitioner's property. State law determines the effect of any liens recorded against the petitioners property.
The effect of all this is that if property is deemed exempt or abandoned or if the petitioner is discharged and retains title to the property, any recorded liens are still attached to the property and must be reckoned with. In most instances whatever equity the petitioner has in the property will be protected by the declaration of homestead. Had the equity exceeded the amount of equity protected by the homestead, the trustee would have probably used it to satisfy the creditors. Excess equity (or property upon which a homestead cannot be declared) is the usual reason that the trustee will ask the court to authorize the sale of the property free and clear of existing liens. The free and clear part is intended to make the property more attractive to a potential buyer, assuring the highest price and getting the most money to satisfy the greatest number of creditors.
Remember, a bankruptcy relieves the discharged petitioner of his debts. It has no effect on the petitioner's property. Unless the bankruptcy court decides otherwise and issues an order removing the lien of existing encumbrances, the property is still subject to the effect or recorded liens under state law.
|
|
Civil Code 1183 Compliance
Frequent inquiries are made regarding necessary procedures to be followed , to comply
with California Civil Code 1183, when an acknowledgment of an instrument is taken outside
the United States.
The code section provides that the following officers may take acknowledgment outside
the United States:
a. A Minister, Commissioner, or Charge d' affaires of the United States.
b. A Consul, Vice consul, or Consular Agent of the United States.
c. A Judge of a Court of Record of the Country where the proof or acknowledgment is
made.
d. Commissioners appointed by the Governor or Secretary of State for that purpose.
e. A Notary Public.
For the purpose of assuring that California County Recorders
will accept the documents upon which the acknowledgments appear for recording, one should
be aware that use of the Official set forth in (a) and (b) is the most certain manner in
which to proceed. The use of a Foreign Notary Public can present special problems since
the signature of that notary public must be proved or acknowledged by:
(1) A Judge of a Court of record of the country where the proof or acknowledgment is
made.
(2) Any American Diplomatic Officer, Consul General, Consul, Vice Consul, or Consular
Agent.
(3) By an apostille (certification) affixed
to the instrument pursuant to the terms of the Hague Convention abolishing the requirement
of legalization for foreign public documents.
Of the three prove-up methods, (3) is the most
practical and reliable. Nations who are members of the Hague Treaty are Countries from
which an apostille will be acceptable. The Apostille must be made in the Country where the
proof or acknowledgment was made, by an authority designated to do so by that Country.
|
|
The Lis Pendens Explained
The Lis Pendens
A Lis Pendens gives constructive notice of a pending lawsuit relating to real property
or affecting the title or the right of possession of real property.
The notice is recorded in the County Recorders Office in which the property is located
at the time the complaint or cross complaint if filed, or at any time thereafter. Once
recorded the Lis Pendens imparts constructive notice not only of its contents (provided it
meets statutory requirements) but also of facts concerning the action that could be
discovered by reasonable inquiry.
A Lis Pendens creates a cloud on title which could render the property unmarketable.
Said Lis Pendens remains as long as the action is pending, unless it is voluntarily
withdrawn or expunged (wipe out - erase) by motion to the court. Caution should still be
used even if the Lis Pendens is not removed since danger may still exist for a Title
Company.
The grounds for expungement include the following:
1) Underlying action does not Affect t title to or the right to possession to the real
property described in the notice, or
2) the lawsuit was not commenced, or is not being prosecuted for a proper purpose and
in good faith.
The court may also order the expungement, even if they decide the real property claim
is probably valid, if the court decides that adequate relief can be secured by posting a
bond an amount sufficient to indemnify the claimant against all resulting damages from
removing the Lis Pendens.
If a motion to expunge is granted, a certified copy of an order expunging the Lis
Pendens may not be recorded, until the period of time of filiing a petition for review by
the court of appeals., has expired.
|
|
|