Legislative Update


[PDF]Legislative Update - Rackcdn.com0b7004cb58d9a8c4298d-f0e88d7e64843b73aa78eb6e49019f5f.r3.cf2.rackcdn.com/...

6 downloads 177 Views 487KB Size

SP/06 C U R R E N T

L E G A L

I S S U E S

A N D

T R E N D S

I N

R E A L

E STAT E

Miller, Starr and Regalia attorneys present at:

The 25th Annual Real Property Retreat April 28–30, 2006, Hyatt Regency, Huntington Beach.

Miller, Starr & Regalia attorneys - Mark Cameron and Arthur Coon - moderated two panels at the recent Real Property Retreat in Huntington Beach. Mark Cameron moderated “Liability Issues in Condominium Conversions” while Arthur Coon coordinated a discussion on “Current Developments in Land Use Law ~ CEQA Big Box Retail, Water Supply, Planning Developments, Kelo decision and Other Issues of Interest.” Audio for these presentations is now available at www.versatape.com

In This Issue: Legislative Update

1

East Bay Women’s Conference

2

A Fowl Decision

6

New Attorneys Join MS&R

7

Recent Articles

8

Legislative Update The California Legislature was active in passing real estate related legislation last year. Following is a summary of important legislation that affects the real estate industry and those involved with issues pertaining to real property. The update does not represent a complete list of all important legislation, but if you would like further details about the summaries provided below or other current legislation, please do not hesitate to contact us directly and/or visit our website at www.MSandR.com. Construction Contracts: Indemnity Clauses Bill Number: AB 758

300 Hamilton Avenue Third Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 T. 650.463.7800 F. 650.462.1010

Assembly Bill 758 amends section 2782 of the California Civil Code to prohibit indemnification agreements by subcontractors in favor of builders in residential construction contracts entered into after January 1, 2006. Specifically, Civil Code section 2782 was amended to provide that residential construction contracts containing agreements and/or covenants by the subcontractor to indemnify against liability for construction defects are unenforceable as follows: n T  o the extent that the claims arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence of the builder or the builder’s other agents, other servants, or other independent contractors who are directly responsible to the builder, or n F  or defects in design furnished by those persons, or n T  o the extent the claims do not arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the scope of work in the written agreement between the parties.

[email protected] www.MSandR.com

This indemnification prohibition includes the cost to defend the builder. However, as long as

1331 N. California Blvd. Fifth Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 T. 925.935.9400 F. 925.933.4126

there is no waiver or modification of the protections afforded the subcontractor, the subcontractor and builder are not prohibited from agreeing to: n The timing or immediacy of the defense; and n Provisions for reimbursement of defense fees and costs. Finally, this prohibition does not affect either the obligations of an insurance carrier under the holding of Presley Homes, Inc. v. American States Insurance Company (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 571, or the builder’s or subcontractor’s obligations pursuant to specified statutes.

 or further information please contact F Mark Cameron at [email protected] or see Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 3d, Ch. 27, Construction Contracts, § 27:67.

Subdivisions: Housing Elements Bill Number: AB 1233 Existing law requires each city, county, or city and county to prepare and adopt a general plan that contains certain mandatory elements, including a housing element. According to the 2005 Legislative Update (cont. on page 2)

1

Legislative Update (cont.)

Linda Ellerbee, keynote speaker

Miller, Starr & Regalia was proud to be one of the sponsors of this year’s First Annual East Bay Women’s Conference.

East Bay Women’s Conference a Huge Success SAN RAMON—Be a survivor, dare to dream, save some money—those were some of the potent messages meted out to those at the first ever East Bay Women’s Conference on Monday, March 6, 2006. Hosted and developed by the Walnut Creek Chamber of Commerce, the conference featured an array of speakers, booths and workshops that were rich fodder for women from every walk of life—from entrepreneurs to corporate leaders and women who work at home.

proponents of AB 1233, this bill was designed to address the concern that a large number of jurisdictions were not identifying and zoning sufficient sites in the course of a planning cycle to meet their Regional Housing Need Assessment requirement, which is part of the housing element of a city and/or county’s general plan. Furthermore, there was no incentive to comply with the requirement. According to the newly added Government Code § 65584.09, on or after January 1, 2006, if a local jurisdiction fails to identify or make available, in the prior planning period, adequate sites to accommodate that portion of the regional housing need allocated pursuant to § 65584, then the city or county must, within the first year of the planning period of the new housing element, zone or rezone adequate sites to accommodate the unaccommodated portion of the regional housing need allocation from the prior planning period. This new section further clarifies that this requirement is in addition to any zoning or rezoning required to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Government Code § 65584 for the new planning period. This new section makes additional clarifying statements (e.g., it does not diminish the requirement of a city or county to accommodate its share of the regional housing need for each income level during the planning period set forth in § 65588).

 or further information please contact Art Coon at F [email protected] or see Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 3d, Ch. 25, Subdivisions, § 25:177.

Subdivisions: Affordable Housing Bill Number: SB 326 Zoning ordinances generally establish, within certain zones, permitted uses that are allowed without further review, conditional uses that are allowed only with the discretionary approval of the local governing body, and non-permitted uses. In order to facilitate meeting the housing needs of low- and moderate-income individuals, existing law requires a multifamily residential housing project to be a “permitted use”—not subject to a conditional use permit—on any parcel zoned for multifamily housing if at least certain percentages of the units are available at affordable housing costs to very lowincome, lower-income, and moderate-income households for at least 30 years and if the project meets specified conditions. Government Code section 65589.4 was amended to, among other things, provide that an “attached housing development” (instead of a “multifamily residential housing project”) is a permitted use not subject to a conditional use permit on a parcel zoned for an attached housing development if local law provides or if various criteria are met.

For further information please contact Art Coon at [email protected] or see Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 3d, Ch. 25, Subdivisions, § 25:177.

Subdivisions: Affordable Housing Bill Number: SB 575 In order to combat the shortage of housing for low- and moderate-income housing in California, existing Planning and Zoning Law prohibits a local agency from disapproving low- or moderate-income housing development projects, or imposing conditions that make development infeasible, unless 2

it finds that one of six narrow conditions exist. The agency must make written findings, based upon substantial evidence in the record, as to one of those specified conditions. Senate Bill 575 revises some of the conditions upon which a disapproval or a conditional approval of the housing development project is based, as follows: n The condition that the project will have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety and there is no way to mitigate or avoid the impact was revised to clarify that inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation does not qualify as an adverse impact. See Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (d)(2). n The condition that the city or county has adopted an updated housing element in substantial compliance with the law, and the project is not needed to meet the jurisdiction’s share of regional housing needs for lower- or moderate-income households, was revised to further clarify that disapproval or conditional approval may not be based on discrimination towards protected groups (race, religion, etc.), as specified. It was additionally revised to prohibit the agency from disapproving or conditionally approving a project if it includes a mix of income categories and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need in one or more of the very low-, low-, or moderate-income categories. See Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (d)(1). n The condition that the project is inconsistent with both the general plan land use designation and the zoning ordinance was also amended to further provide that if the agency has failed to identify in the land inventory in its housing element sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need for all income levels, the agency is prohibited from disapproving or conditionally approving a housing development project proposed for a site designated in any element of its general plan for residential uses, or for commercial uses if residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted within commercial designations, of the local agency. See Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (d)(5)(B). The Planning and Zoning Law currently requires that in any action to enforce these provisions, if a court finds that the agency disapproved the project or conditioned its approval without making the required findings or findings not supported by substantial evidence, the court must issue an order or judgment to compel compliance with these provisions within 60 days. Further amendments regarding a court action are also set forth in the newly enacted section.

 or further information please contact Art Coon at F [email protected] or see Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 3d, Ch. 25, Subdivisions, § 25:181.

agency or private entity providing these services to grant a priority for the provision of available and future resources or services to proposed housing developments that help meet the legislative body’s share of the regional housing need for lower income households as identified in the housing element and any amendments to the housing element. Senate Bill 1087 requires that the adopted housing element and any amendments be delivered immediately to all public agencies and private entities that provide municipal and industrial, including residential, water or sewer services or connections (“Water Suppliers”), and requires a priority of services to proposed developments that include housing units affordable to lower income households. Senate Bill 1087 further mandates that Water Suppliers must adopt a written policy, by July 1, 2006 (and at least once every 5 years thereafter), with “specific objective standards” for allocation of water and sewer services to affordable housing developments. For private water and sewer companies regulated by the Public Utilities Commission (the “PUC”), the PUC must in turn adopt written policies and procedures for use by those companies that take into account specified factors. (See Gov. Code § 65589.7, subd. (a).) Water Suppliers may not deny or condition the approval of an application for services to, or reduce the amount of services applied for by, a proposed development that includes housing units affordable to lower-income households unless the public agency or private entity makes specific written findings that the denial, condition, or reduction is necessary due to the existence of one or more specified conditions (e.g., there is not a sufficient water supply). (See Gov. Code § 65589.7, subd. (b).) These provisions are applicable to all cities and counties, including charter cities. (See Gov. Code § 65589.7, subd. (f).) Senate Bill 1087 also adds a provision to the Water Code to now require that water use projections made by urban Water Suppliers in their mandatory urban water management plans must now include projected water use for single-family and multifamily residential housing needed for lower-income households, as identified in the housing element of any city, county, or city and county in the service area of the supplier. This new requirement is intended to assist a supplier in complying with the statutory requirement, as outlined above, to grant a priority for the provision of service to lower-income households. (See Water Code § 10631.1.) For further information please contact Art Coon at [email protected] or see Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 3d, Ch. 25, Subdivisions, §§ 25:171, 25:177.

Subdivisions: Environmental Review Bill Number: SB 648

Subdivisions: Allocation of Resources for Affordable Housing Bill Number: SB 1087 Existing Planning and Zoning Law requires that the adopted housing element of a general plan (and any amendments made) be delivered to all public agencies or private entities that provide water services at retail or sewer services within the territory of the legislative body. The law also obligates each public

Under existing law, the public review period of a draft environmental impact report (“EIR”) is not less than 30 days, unless the EIR has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review. In that case, the public review period is lengthened, as specified. Section 21091 of the Public Resources Code also prescribes review periods of a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration. Prior to amendment, this section also provided that if the review period of the

3

environmental document by the Clearinghouse was longer than the timeframes specified, then the review period was at least as long as the period of review by the State Clearinghouse. As amended, this section now provides that the review period shall be at least as long as the period of review and comment by state agencies as established by the State Clearinghouse. This amended section now also provides that: n The public review period and the state agency review period may, but are not required to, begin and end at the same time; and n The first day of the state agency review period is the date that the State Clearinghouse distributes the document to state agencies. Additionally, the State Clearinghouse is now required to distribute a CEQA document to a state agency within 3 working days of the date of receipt if it determines that the document is complete. The Clearinghouse must specify the information it requires in order to determine completeness of the document. For further information please contact Art Coon at [email protected] or see Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 3d, Ch. 25, Subdivisions, § 25:187.

Community Redevelopment: Senior Housing Bill Number: SB 527 The Community Redevelopment Law requires a percentage of tax increment funds that are allocated to a redevelopment agency to be used by the agency for purposes of low- and moderate-income housing. Prior to amendment, the law required each redevelopment agency to expend the moneys in the Lowand Moderate-Income Housing Fund to assist housing that was available to all persons regardless of age in at least the same proportion as the population under the age of 65 years bore to the total population of the community as reported in the most recent census of the United States Census Bureau. However, according to the author of the SB 527, this calculation was faulty for those communities where the senior population had a greater proportion of low-income earners than the general population. For example, in the City of San Jose, seniors constitute 20.5 percent of the low-income population, but only make up 8% of the general population. Health & Safety Code section 33334.4 was amended to address this problem by now requiring that the housing assistance be available in at least the same proportion as the number of low-income households with a member under the age of 65 years bears to the total number of low-income households of the community.

 or further information please contact Bill Shiber at F [email protected] or see Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 3d, Ch. 30B, Community Redevelopment, § 30B:6.

Community Redevelopment: Use of Tax Increment Funds Bill Number: AB 1390 Existing law requires a redevelopment agency to deposit at least 20% of its tax increment funds (“TIF”) into a Lowand Moderate-Income Housing Fund (the “L&M Fund”) for the purposes of increasing, improving, and preserving the community’s supply of low- and moderate-income housing. 4

The newly enacted AB 1390 provides a 10-year statute of limitations period for the following actions against redevelopment agencies concerning the L&M Fund: n to compel compliance with an agency’s obligation to deposit not less than 20% of their TIF into the L&M Fund (action accrues on the last day of the fiscal year of the required deposit); and n for improper expenditures of the L&M Fund (action accrues on the date of the actual expenditure of the funds). The amended section 33334.2 obligates an agency that is found to have deposited inadequate funds or unlawfully expended funds to repay the funds with interest in one lump sum unless the agency petitions the court for repayment in installments, or the agency repays a portion of the judgment into the L&M Fund in equal installments over a period of five years. If the agency decides to repay the funds in installments, it still must pay all costs, including reasonable attorney fees (if included in the judgment), upon entry of judgment or order.

 or further information please contact Bill Shiber at F [email protected] or see Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 3d, Ch. 30B, Community Redevelopment, § 30B:6.

Community Redevelopment: Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing Bill Number: SB 950 Senate Bill 950 contains the following three elements designed to strengthen existing low- and moderate-income housing preservation laws: n Expands the definition of “at risk”, for purposes of applying for low-income housing tax credits, to additionally include: – a multifamily rental housing development in which at least 50 percent of the units receive governmental assistance, as specified; or – the restrictions on rent and income levels will terminate or the federal insured mortgage on the property is eligible for prepayment anytime in the five calendar years after the year of application for the credit. n Clarifies tenant protections when mortgage revenue bonds are pre-paid. The laws governing bonds issued by cities and counties on behalf of affordable housing developers include provisions that protect existing tenants through the original term of the bond if the owner pre-pays the mortgage. While housing authorities and redevelopment agencies are also authorized to issue tax exempt bonds for the same purpose, prior to the passage of SB 950, there were no similar protections to tenants on prepayment of the mortgage. The law was amended to specifically require that regulatory agreements state that rents will remain restricted for existing tenants at the time of conversion until specified conditions arise (e.g., the household voluntarily moves or is evicted for “good cause,” as defined). n Preserves notice laws concerning assisted housing. Existing law, until January 1, 2011, requires an owner, prior to the anticipated date of the termination of a subsidy contract, expiration of rental restrictions, or prepayment on an assisted housing development, as defined, to provide a notice of the proposed change to specified parties. The owner is not required to provide the notice if certain conditions contained in a regulatory agreement have been recorded

against the property. SB 950 modifies those conditions with respect to rent increases on assisted and unassisted units, as provided.

For further information please contact Bill Shiber at [email protected] or see Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 3d, Ch. 30B, Community Redevelopment, § 30B:6.

Contracts: Transfer of Residential Real Property Bill Number: AB 459 Existing law requires certain disclosures to be made upon the transfer of residential property. With the passage of AB 459, the seller of residential property (or his/her agent), must now deliver to the prospective purchaser a disclosure notice concerning supplemental property tax assessments (taxes that are due after the county assessor adjusts the previously assessed value to reflect the new value of the property). The act adds section 1102.6c to the Civil Code, which requires a notice in at least 12-point type or contrasting color (title must be 14-point type or contrasting color). The exact language of the disclosure required is set forth in the new section. Finally, the supplemental property tax assessment notice must also be included in the notice of intention that is filed with the Department of Real Estate by a person who intends to offer subdivided lands for sale or lease. See amended Bus. & Prof. Code § 11010.

 or further information please contact Michael Polentz F at [email protected] or see Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 3d, Ch. 1, Contracts, § 1:44.

Contracts: “Megan’s Law” Notices Bill Number: AB 1323 Existing “Megan’s Law” requires that specified information about registered sex offenders be made available to the public via an internet website. In part, Assembly Bill 1323 recasts notice provisions concerning the website required in residential leases and residential real property sales contracts for the sale of one to four dwelling units entered into on or after specified dates. For contracts entered into April 1, 2006, and thereafter, the revised notice must now state the following:  otice: Pursuant to Section 290.46 of the Penal Code, informaN tion about specified registered sex offenders is made available to the public via an Internet Web site maintained by the Department of Justice at www.meganslaw.ca.gov. Depending on an offender’s criminal history, this information will include either the address at which the offender resides or the community of residence and ZIP Code in which he or she resides.

 or further information please contact Michael Polentz F at [email protected] or see Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 3d, Ch. 1, Contracts, § 1:44; Ch. 19, Landlord and Tenant, § 19:123.

Hazardous Substances: CLERRA Exemption Eliminated Bill Number: SB 471 Prior to the enactment of SB 471, the California Land Environmental Restoration and Reuse Act (“CLERRA”), concerning the clean-up of “Brownfield” properties, exempted

properties with one or more full-time equivalent employees on an annualized basis from being subject to the authority of a local agency to compel the owner of that property to investigate and remediate the site. This exclusion has been deleted. Accordingly, section 25401.1 of the California Health & Safety Code has been amended such that “Property,” as defined under CLERRA, now includes a site that has one or more full-time equivalent employees on an annualized basis.

 or further information please contact Ed Regalia at F [email protected] or see Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 3d, Ch. 23, Hazardous Substances, § 23:58.1 (Supplement).

Housing Opportunity Center Makes It Easier For Developers To Fill Affordable Units It is no coincidence that half of the reported legislation in this year’s update relates to affordable housing and redevelopment. California in general and the Bay Area in particular are experiencing an affordable housing shortage. Even so, developers often have to spend months (and big bucks) to find a financially viable buyer for an affordable unit. Enter the award-winning Tri-Valley Housing Opportunity Center: Funded by the Town of Danville, the cities of San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore, as well as Alameda and Contra Costa counties, this coalition is best known for providing potential homebuyers with information about private sector lender programs and credit counseling. More notably, however, it pre-screens and secures lender approval of potential buyers, in essence creating pre-packaged, pre-approved and credit-ready buyers to fill affordable units that previously sat on the market for months while an individual developer attempted to fill the unit—often unsuccessfully. The Center, bridging the gap between building an affordable unit and selling an affordable unit, now serves as a model for other such programs nationwide.

For more information, please contact Dana Tsubota at 925.935.9400 or visit the Tri-Valley Housing Opportunity Center website at www.tvhoc.org

5

E N V I R O N M E N TA L D E V E LO P M E N T S

A Fowl Decision In a ruling that will surely be of interest to rural property owners and hunters, especially waterfowl hunters, a Colusa County, California, Superior Court Judge was recently faced with the question as to whether California Department of Fish & Game and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service regulations and policies discouraging the wanton waste of migratory game birds provided duck hunters hunting on their own property with a right to enter onto neighboring property owned by private persons to retrieve downed or wounded waterfowl that they had shot. In the case, the defendant hunters argued that they had the right based on California Department Fish & Game and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service regulations and policies to enter onto private property adjoining their hunting property in order to retrieve waterfowl that they have downed or wounded while hunting on their own property as long as they did so without bringing their firearms onto their neighbors’ properties. The neighboring property owners filed a lawsuit against the defendants seeking a temporary restraining order and entry of a preliminary injunction contending that the hunters’ entry onto their private property to retrieve downed waterfowl constituted a trespass. The trial court indicated during oral argument on the application for a temporary restraining order and the later four-and a-half hour preliminary injunction hearing with several live witnesses that the defendant hunters, absent the express permission of their neighbors, had no right under any particular hunting rule, regulation or policy regarding wanton waste of waterfowl to enter onto their plaintiff neighbors’ property (with or without their firearms) to retrieve downed waterfowl. Furthermore, the Judge restrained the defendant hunters from discharging bullets or shotgun pellets onto or 6

by W. Scott Shepard over the plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs contended this constituted a trespass under California law. Conversely, the defendant hunters contended that their occasional discharging of firearms over their neighbors’ property did not amount to a trespass. The plaintiffs also contended that the hunting conduct of their defendant neighbors, which included: early shooting, late shooting, discharging of firearms onto and over their property, entry onto their property to retrieve downed waterfowl, six to ten hunters hunting at any one time creating a large volume of gun fire originating from their neighbors’ small and narrow hunting property, high shooting and “sky scraping,” and maintenance of and hunting from several hunting blinds located within 75 yards of their property (one as close as 20 yards) constituted a real property nuisance. A nuisance is defined under California law as the unreasonable interference with a property owners’ free use and enjoyment of their property. (Civil Code § 3479; Capogeannis v. Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 668, 674.) Plaintiffs contended that the defendants’ hunting practices severely compromised their ability to hunt and the quality of the duck hunting on their large hunting properties. While the Court did not make a specific finding of nuisance at oral argument, the Court did enter a temporary restraining order followed by a later preliminary injunction ordering the defendant hunters not to: n enter onto plaintiffs’ property; n fire at waterfowl on or over plaintiffs’ property; n shoot firearms such that the shot will enter the air space over plaintiffs’ property or hit or fall on plaintiffs’ property; n hunt waterfowl from within 50 yards of the plaintiffs’ property line;

Welcome!

6 New Attorneys Join Miller, Starr & Regalia Liana C. Epperson Liana Epperson has joined the firm as a transactional associate in the Walnut Creek office. Her practice focuses on real estate and business transactions and she can be reached at 925.935.9400 or [email protected].

Sidney S. Fohrman Sidney (“Sid”) Fohrman recently joined the firm as a litigation associate in Walnut Creek. Sid’s practice includes business and commercial litigation and he can be reached at 925.935.9400 or [email protected].

E. David Marks place any or hunt from any hunting blinds located within 50 yards of plaintiffs’ property line; n having more than six hunters at any one time on defendants’ property; n have any more than three hunting blinds in use at any one time on defendants’ property; n hunting too early or too late in violation of the beginning and ending shooting times set forth in Title 14, California Code of Regulations § 506; and n hunting waterfowl from out in the open without any cover. n

The Court’s entry of a Preliminary Injunction on these terms is tantamount to a decision that the defendants’ alleged conduct amounted to a nuisance and substantially and unreasonably interfered with plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their hunting property. In furtherance of their claim, plaintiffs presented evidence that they and others on their hunting property had been peppered by shotgun pellets on several occasions fired by hunters on defendants’ adjoining property. This important decision for property owners and duck hunting club owners protects a property owners’ real property rights by preventing trespass and interference with one’s free use and enjoyment of property and promotes safety by restricting the hunting activities that can take place within close proximity to other persons’ private property. Scott Shephard is a shareholder in the firm’s Walnut Creek office and may be reached at 925.935.9400 or [email protected].

David recently joined Miller, Starr & Regalia as a shareholder in the firm’s Palo Alto office. He specializes in commercial litigation and can be reached at 650.463.7800 or [email protected].

Tara Castro Narayanan Tara Castro Narayanan joined the firm as a litigation associate in the Walnut Creek office. Tara’s practice is focused on commercial litigation and she can be reached at 925.935.9400 or [email protected]

Serena Patitucci Torvik Serena recently joined the firm’s Palo Alto office as a senior litigation associate. Serena’s practice is focused on commercial litigation and she can be reached at 650.463.7800 or [email protected].

Stephen E. Velyvis Stephen joined the firm’s Walnut Creek office as a litigation associate in the land use and environmental practice group. Stephen can be reached at 925.935.9400 or [email protected] 7

SP/06 In This Issue: Legislative Update

1

East Bay Women’s Conference

2

A Fowl Decision

6

New Attorneys Join MS&R

7

Recent Articles

8

1331 N. California Blvd. Fifth Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 T. 925.935.9400 www.MSandR.com

Miller & Starr California Real Estate Miller, Starr & Regalia attorneys are currently re-writing three chapters of Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 3d, in addition to completing the annual Supplement. To be published Fall 2006. Chapter 30: Inverse Condemnation Chapter 15: Easements Chapter 12: Holding Title

RECENT ARTICLES

“Assessment Liens and Foreclosures in Common Interest Developments” by Karl E. Geier Miller & Starr Newsalert, Thomson-West, January 2006.

“Traveling in Time: The New California Time-Share Act” by Edmund L. Regalia Miller & Starr Newsalert, Thomson-West, May 2006.

“Grafton Partners: Juries Make a Comeback” by Basil Shiber Real Property Law Reporter, January 2006.

“The Government is Always Right: The Supreme Court Tackles Takings” by Basil S. Shiber and Ethan Friedman California Real Property Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2006.

“Premises and Landowner Liability: The Supreme Court Continues Its Expansion of Potential Liability for Personal Injuries” by Kenneth R. Styles Miller & Starr Newsalert, Thomson-West, March 2006. “Settling With Certainty—California Courts of Appeal Grapple with Challenges to the Settlement of Land Use Litigation” by Kristina Lawson California Land Use Laws & Policy Reporter, Vol. 15, No. 7, April 2006.

“Changes in the Law of Punitive Damages – Evolution or Revolution?” by Edmund L. Regalia California Real Property Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2006. “Ten Years After Silacci, Mehdizadeh and Scruby, Neighbors in California Are Still Behaving Like the ‘Hatfields and McCoys’” by Lewis Soffer & David Harris Miller & Starr Newsalert, Thomson-West, To be published July 2006.