Multiple contracts invoke Civil Code §8186 (former §3117) which can be fatal to mechanic’s lien claims. Section 8186 provides when projects are built pursuant to more than one “direct” contract, with each contract covering a particular portion of the work, the owner may record separate notices of completion for each particular portion of the work performed under each contract, rather than waiting for completion of the project as a whole. This affects the time to record a mechanics lien. (See also Gunther v. McCormick (1922) 60 Cal.App. 350) For example ….
Continue Reading Mechanic’s Lien Problems with Multiple Contracts (Civil Code §8186)
The down payment made by one co-tenant (co-owner) of Real Property is reimbursable to the person who paid it.
Looking at the CCP about Partition and the equitable powers of the court, the person paying the down payment should be reimbursed what they paid for the down payment before any distribution of the proceeds. In re Marriage of Leversee (1984) 156 Cal. App. 3d 891 involved a married couple who prior to marriage purchased
The Court Loses Jurisdiction to Stay Enforcement of Order After Sheriff Levy) Del Riccio v. Sup. Court
Often after a bank levy or eviction (unlawful detainer) lock out, the defendant files a motion for a stay or to be let back into possession. Code of Civil Procedure § 918 can only “stay the enforcement of an judgment or order”. There is nothing to stay after the levy or lockout occurred. As stated
To Broke to Arbitrate? No Problem! (Weiler v. Marcus & Millichap)
In Marcus and Millichap Real Estate (April 30, 2018) G053953, a sympathetic Court reversed a ruling so that a once wealthy, but now poor Plaintiff who lost more than $2.8million by the defendants for elder abuse and breach of fiduciary duty, and after being in arbitration for many years, ask the trial court to transfer
Parol Evidence Rule does Not Exclude Verbal Fraudulent Statements that Contradict the Written Contract (CCP 1856)
Code of Civil Procedure 1856(g) provides that parol (verbal) evidence to explain the circumstances under which the agreement, to which it relates, explain an extrinsic ambiguity or otherwise interpret the terms of the agreement, or to establish illegality or fraud. Further, parol evidence is admissible even if the contract itself is clear or not in
Employees Cannot Sue Temp Company then sue its Client Company! (Castillo v. Glenair 22 Cal.App.5th 348)
Finally, a common sense ruling.
After settling a class action lawsuit against temporary staffing agency, workers brought wage and hour putative class action raising identical claims against the client-company where they had been placed to work. The Court of Appeal held that:
1. agency and client-company were in privity for purposes of wage and hour
New Independent Contractor vs. Employee Test: Dynamex Operations
The California Supreme Court changed the test to determine what is an independent contractor vs. employee to a new “ABC” test. The 2nd prong, is the tough one for employers.
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. involved a trucking company which changed its policy from classifying drivers as employees to independent contractors. The Court applied a
Air BNB Update on Short Term Rental in the Los Angeles Area
City of Los Angeles: Technically, short term rentals are currently illegal in Los Angeles. ( (Chen vs. Kraft (2016) LA is slow moving but in April 2018 the City Counsel committee approved a measure to allow short term rentals but CAP the number of days that a primary residence can be rented out to
General Contractors Now Liable for Sub Contractors’s failure to pay Subs’ employees! Labor Code 218.7
New Labor Code Section 218.17 (AB 1701) makes a general contractor jointly liable for the unpaid wages, fringe benefits, or other benefit payments or contributions of a subcontractor (at any tier).
Labor Code 218.7 provides “down-the-chain protection” to a sub-contractor’s employees if they are misclassified as as independent contractors or not paid. The bill applies
Court may NOT order answer only after denying a motion to quash service
In denying a motion to quash an unlawful detainer summons, the trial court may not restrict a defendant’s responsive pleading to an answer. Van Butenschoen v. Flaker; Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles – filed Oct. 16, 2017 Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 5258 Full text click here
This makes complete sense because the