Here is a summary of some of the larger new real estate oriented laws for 2019.
- Landlord Tenant: Evictions – Three Days’ Notice Excludes Holidays and Weekends: When counting a three days’ notice to pay rent or quit or a three days’ notice to perform covenant or quit, or in responding to a complaint


Due process prevails. A common mistake is pleading damages (other than as limited in Family/PI/wrongful death cases) according to proof without providing the defendant with a number of possible damages. The result is a default but no money to the plaintiff. The law states a default judgment cannot exceed the type and amount of relief
The Court held that a broker must disclose that the seller’s neighbor told him he planned to remodel and his remodeled house would overlook the seller’s pool and interfere with the view. This case case also found expert broker testimony is not always necessary to find breach of a broker’s duty care. The Court stated
January 1, 2017, Civil Code § 1938 was expanded to require:
The trial court research attorneys s are now happier! No longer can an amended pleading be filed the morning before the demurrer hearing! As of 2018, amended Code of Civil Procedure §472 now provides:
The moral fiber of our society continues to degrade. The following is an attorney ethics issue and as a reminder attorney’s are held to a higher standard.
A homeowner’s liability insurer does not have duty to defend a lawsuit after the insured intentionally pruned trees on another’s property without permission. The intentional act of hiring a contractor to prune is not an “accident” within the meaning of the policy’s coverage provision, even if the insured mistakenly believed the trees were on the
In California while recreational cannabis is all the rage after January 1, 2018, the California. Medical marijuana laws under California’s “Compassionate Use” Act still provide some benefits. Including:
Intimate Sexual Contact Alone Does Not Constitute Minimum Contacts. A California woman conceived a child in Connecticut but filed a paternity and child support suit in California against the father living in Connecticut. The trial court denied his man moved to quash service of summons based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the man’s knowledge that the mother resided in California and the foreseeability that unprotected sex may lead to birth of a child were insufficient to establish the requisite minimum contacts. The appellate court explained that jurisdiction must be based upon facts showing a “substantial connection” to California following Walden v. Fiore (2014) 571 U.S. 277, 289. (David L. v. Superior Court (Cal. App. 4th Dist., Div. 1, Nov. 26, 2018) 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 1067.) The father seems to regularly travel to California on business trips, and he and the woman had sex on those trips including a prior pregnancy. However, the Court dismissed these as insufficient contacts for the paternity issue. For more salacious details, which may have influenced the Court, look here …
In an article by Sanford Gage, who is a very good mediator, 9,000 California settlement decisions were analyzed over 41 years comparing rejected pretrial settlement offers and actual trial results. Sixty-one percent of the time, the plaintiffs obtained an award that was the same or worse than the result the plaintiff would have achieved by