Archive for the ‘Blog Posts’ Category

Bank v America V Mitchell: Sold-Out Junior Has No Right To Deficiency Judgment

Monday, April 23rd, 2012

The Second District Court of Appeals, Division 4, recently confirmed that the anti-deficiency protections of borrowers under California Civil Code section 580d (CCP 580d) also preclude a personal judgment against a foreclosed borrower by the junior lender where the senior and junior were the same and the senior non-judicial foreclosure sale wipes out their second. The court followed the 1992 case of Simon v Superior Court distinguishing the wiped out second here from those permitted a right to a personal judgment from a borrower in the 1963 California Supreme Court Case of Roseleaf Corp v Chierighino.

GreenPoint Mortgage, Inc. (GreenPoint) made a loan of $315,000 secured by Mr. Mitchell’s home. That loan was divided into two notes ($252,000 and $63,000) with each note secured by a separate deed of trust. So, in essence, the single loan was divided into two with the smaller note amount being placed in a junior lien position to the larger note. Mitchell defaulted on the first, GreenPoint elected to non-judicially foreclose by way of the deed of trust power of sale and sold the property to a third party bidder. Over a year later, GreenPoint sells the smaller note and assigned the wiped out second deed of trust to Bank of America (Bank). The Bank then sued Mr. Mitchell to recover the amounts owing on that note and second deed of trust.

Citing Roseleaf, the Bank argued that it should be treated like all holders of a non-purchase money junior lien wiped out by the senior’s foreclosure. The appellate court disagreed holding that California’s anti-deficiency statutes (in this case C.C.P. §580d) precluded treatment of the Bank as the sold-out junior in Roseleaf. The court distinguished the right of a sold-out junior as identified in the Roseleaf case from the Bank in this case on the basis that second deed of trust was eliminated as a direct result of the foreclosure by the same lender that made the original loan (i.e. GreenPoint). GreenPoint chose to separate the single loan into two notes and deeds of trust and controlled the elimination of the security for the second smaller note by initiating and completing the non-judicial foreclosure. In the Roseleaf scenario, the junior lender did not control the senior loan or the decision to foreclose. The court reasoned that this made the position of the Bank indistinguishable from the junior lender position in the 1992 Simon case. The Court found that it made no difference that the Bank merely was the assignee since the Bank, as an assignee, stood in the shoes of GreenPoint as to a right to pursue the borrower personally. The court reasoned that to hold otherwise would permit lenders to contrive loan structures to circumvent CCP 580d borrower protections.

It is unclear from the facts of this case whether GreenPoint made the dual structured loan as a “true lender” or whether it was acting, in essence, as a facilitator for two other independent lenders that immediately purchased the loans funded by GreenPoint. It could be argued that in this common lending scenario the mere loan originator (GreenPoint) did not dictate the terms of the loan, its structure into two separate loans or otherwise control the senior’s foreclosure except to the extent it was acting as a servicer following the requirements of the holder of the first and true lender. Arguably such a fact pattern may justify a different analysis and perhaps a different result than handed to the Bank in this case……at least that is what this lawyer thinks

 

The foregoing was prepared for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended to nor should it be construed as offering or providing legal advice nor does the provision of the foregoing create an attorney-client relationship or other confidential relationship.

Brinker V Superior Court – Are Employer’s Responsible To Make Sure Employees Take Their Lunch Breaks?

Tuesday, April 17th, 2012

The California Supreme Court opinion in the recently decided Brinker case addresses the scope of the employer’s obligation for employee meal breaks. Brinker is a corporation that runs a number of national chain restaurants. A number of employees alleged, among other things, that they did not take their meal break, and, in a significant ruling, the court addressed the scope of the employer’s responsibility towards assuring California employees take their lunch or meal breaks.

The court held that the employer’s obligation is to relieve its employees of all duty and allow them the liberty to use their meal period for whatever purpose they desire. However, the Court held that the employer does not have to make sure no work is done by the employee during the break. So what satisfies the obligation to provide a meal period? The Court said the employer is obligated only to “make available” the meal periods not to make sure the employee actually takes it. The court went on to hold that the “making available” requirement has no requirement to ensure the employee in fact does no work. However, in a clear word of caution to employers, the opinion admonished that employers may not undermine the meal period requirement by pressuring employees to perform their job duties in ways that cause them to not take their meal break. So the employer cannot coerce employees to not take their meal break, create incentives or otherwise encourage them to skip it.

The foregoing was prepared for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended to nor should it be construed as offering or providing legal advice nor does the provision of the foregoing create an attorney-client relationship or other confidential relationship.

Worst Recession Since the Great Depression Affecting Lawyers Too

Thursday, December 24th, 2009

Alan Insul, a Los Angeles lawyer limiting his practice to business, corporate, and real estate cases, offers some candid commentary about his law firms dealing with new economic realities.

It’s tough out there, even for lawyers. From major law firms to small firms, excess is being trimmed in order to better facilitate a nouveau climate urging more cautious business expenditures for legal advice. “The nation’s businesses are pulling in their collective horns beneath the juggernaut of our longest and deepest recession since the Great Depression,” asserts Alan Insul, a Los Angeles lawyer limiting his practice to business, corporate, and real estate cases, “I find that many clients are shedding large law firm representation and looking toward smaller firms for efficient and more cost-effective legal representation.”

A survey of the nation’s top 250 law firms bears out what Insul is saying. During the past year, these apex firms have shed 5,259 lawyers from their payrolls, a drop of 4%. This is the largest lawyer retention downturn since the National Law Journal began collecting such information in 1928 – just prior to the dismal Great Depression. Two other distinct declines, both in the neighborhood of 1 percent, were recorded during the early 1990s. One firm, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson lost 168 lawyers, a decline of 26.4%.

Other firms are cutting billing rates and pay for associates by up to 20%, primarily in response to clients’ concerns about cutting the costs of legal services.

“It’s a challenging marketplace we’re in now, and a changing one. Clients, in looking toward smaller firms, while not willing to sacrifice on quality, nevertheless are coming to appreciate that the smaller more nimble firm is by definition more flexible, and can very often handle most, if not all, of the same matters previously handled by larger firms,” Insul explains.

During the early 1930s and especially in mid-1937 during the so-called “second wind” of the Great Depression, lawyers too were embroiled in a bleak scenario featuring bread lines and soup kitchens, and a chronic lack of steady employment even for the most qualified and best trained among them. Nowadays, the outlook is more positive for lawyers, especially those willing to make some adjustments. “Making some of these adjustments can even lead many firms and their clients to a stronger business position overall,” Insul concludes.

To learn more, contact Los Angeles business attorney and California corporate lawyer, Alan M. Insul by visiting Insullaw.com.

Schwarzenegger Veto Prevents State Bar from Raising Dues

Thursday, December 17th, 2009

Alan Insul, a Los Angeles attorney limiting his practice to business, corporate, and real estate, provides pertinent commentary on California Governor’s recent decision to veto a state bar membership dues bill that would have extended the State Bar’s authority to collect annual membership dues through 2010.

On October 13, 2009, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 641, which would have extended the California State Bar’s authority to collect annual membership dues through 2010. Schwarzenegger explained in his letter to Senate that he was returning the measure by Sen. Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro, without his signature “because the State Bar cannot continue business as usual.”

While the State Bar has enough funds to continue functioning through 2009, Los Angeles attorney Alan Insul, who is limiting his practice to business, corporate, and real estate cases, says that the veto “seems a bit like overkill” and that a “compromise between the Legislature and Governor,” should be worked out soon.

The governor opined that “inefficiencies remain unaddressed” and that the State Bar maintained a “political agenda.” Governor Schwarzenegger also alluded to Sharon Elyce Pearl, the State Bar’s former director of real property, who was charged in April 2009 with one count of embezzlement and six counts of filing false tax returns in the Alameda County Court. She faces up to nine years in prison if convicted on all counts. The governor went on to reference the media leak of the Fifth District Court of Appeal Justice Charles Poochigian’s “not qualified” rating by the State Bar’s Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission. Poochigian, a former Republican state senator representing the Fresno area, was nominated August 20, three days after the MetNews reported his rating in a column by Editor Roger M. Grace. Schwarzenegger said the commission “by failing to follow the law, damaged its reputation for impartiality and, in turn, the State Bar’s.”

“Some of the points made by Governor Schwarzenegger are difficult to argue with, and certainly possess merit, but the fact is, the State Bar should not be prevented from functioning as normally as possible next year,” Insul asserts, “while scrutiny of the State Bar is essential, so is the State Bar’s role in the state’s justice system, as the governor himself has acknowledged.”

“I’m sure that our State Bar will be reexamining the problems that the governor has noted, but we’re all hopeful that his veto has not placed our very system in any jeopardy,” Insul concludes.

To learn more, contact Los Angeles business attorney and California corporate lawyer, Alan M. Insul by visiting Insullaw.com.

From the Ground Up

Monday, August 10th, 2009

Looming on the horizon is an updated newly revised version of Ground Lease Practice; a practical handbook for lawyers dealing with the complexities of commercial ground lease situations.

Alan Insul, an expert Los Angeles business attorney, consulted on this latest version of Continuing Education of the Bar’s Ground Lease Practice in the complicated area of the rights between the parties in the event of a total or partial destruction of the improvements in situations such as a fire or earthquake. Continuing Education of the Bar is a joint enterprise of the University of California and the State Bar of California.

Commercial ground leases are when the owner of the land leases unimproved land to another party who will build and then own that commercial development. Leases for projects like this may run from 25 to 99 years. Unless the parties agree right up front in a ground lease agreement, the land owner winds up owning the improvements – a rather awkward state of affairs. “The transactions are very complex often involving the land owner, developer, lender and sometimes a large commercial user such as a major department store,” outlined Insul.

Drafting and negotiating solid, long-term ground leases may sound like a fairly straightforward issue. It is anything but straightforward and requires an expert attorney with a fine imagination and vision for the future. The future meaning the ability to balance the short-term goals of a client against a plethora of “what if” issues and conditions that may crop up in a real estate project 30 to 50 or more years down the pike.

It isn’t easy going in the beginning either when the attorney needs to be able to co-ordinate and keep track of the parties, title and interests involved; make sure there is a complete premises description; provide for term, termination and options to extend or buy and deal with issues pertaining to rent, security and other types of payments. “The issues are even more far reaching than that and will also include the not insubstantial matters of construction, maintenance, ownership of improvements, financing, subordination, encumbrances and problems relating to condemnation,” added Insul.

It’s interesting to note that there is the distinct possibility that a major project in Beverly Hills may possibly have more residual value at the end of a ground lease situation as compared to a project developed to provide commercial support for the re-development of a blighted community which may or may not succeed in the long-term.

“A project in Beverly Hills may be more likely to have residual value at the end of the ground lease rather than a project developed to provide commercial support for a redevelopment of a blighted community which may or may not succeed over the long-term,” said Insul.

The content contained within this feature is not intended as legal advice and does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. To learn more, contact Los Angeles business attorney and California corporate lawyer, Alan M. Insul by visiting Insullaw.com.

Protecting Your Company Assets

Wednesday, February 11th, 2009

Can You keep A Secret?
By Alan M. Insul, Esq.

How many times have you been told “relax, you can trust me”? And how many more times do you actually find yourself handing over valuable company information to a consultant, key employee, or other third party without so much as taking his library card to prove you gave them your crown jewels? Well, for what it is worth, I too may have been a little too trusting when acting as CEO of various companies. Feeling a little less silly now that you know you are not alone? Of course, the real question is how do you protect your company assets.

A company secret can range from customer lists and marketing plans to prototype computer programs and inventions. Depending upon the type of secret protected you may have to disclose this information to people either inside the company or third parties such as distributors. Ultimately you must place some level of trust in those needing access to company secrets. However, it is important that you implement a security system to control the dissemination and use of the secrets. When dealing with employees consider the following:

  • Access should be strictly limited to only those needing to know. You may even need to put information in a physically restricted area that require sign in and sign out procedures.
  • Any computer terminal access should likewise be restricted based upon password access and perhaps segregated terminals.
  • Control or eliminate any copying of the trade secret material and make sure that all paper is shredded rather than simply put into the circular file.
  • All confidential material should be conspicuously marked as such on each page. Instruct employees as part of their employment manual and with posted signs not to leave confidential material unattended.
  • Designate a person to review all press releases, speeches, corporate information such as brochures, financial statements, etc. to prevent inadvertent dissemination. Also calendar a periodic review of all these procedures to make necessary adjustments.

Trade secrets protection also must uniformly extend beyond your controlled environment. This includes your consultants working with your proprietary information. Even when dealing with third parties, it is useful to make sure that they have instituted the security program with respect to their employees. Another useful tool is the non-disclosure agreement (NDA). I suggest that you have a standard NDA for use with employees as well as outside consultants. This type of agreement sets out the manner in which the information is to be protected, the fact that you expect the information to be protected even beyond the time when the other person has stopped working with your company. It also can serve as a basis to assure you that the outsider will not subsequently compete with you by altering your trade secrets and passing them off as their own.

In a subsequent article, I will cover some of the legal rights you may assert when an employee or third party misappropriates your properly protected trade secrets. However, you have a number of tools that you can immediately utilize to start protecting your trade secrets. Remember if the asset enhances your company’s competitive edge do not risk loosing your advantage by simply asking that employee or outside consultant “Can you keep a secret?” …at least that this lawyer thinks.

The Los Angeles based Law Office of Alan M. Insul limits practice to Business and Corporate Law for clients internationally, and nationally including the San Fernando Valley, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Culver City, Glendale, Burbank, Pasadena, Santa Clarita, Semi Valley, Calabasas, Agoura, Agoura Hills, Westlake, Palos Verdes, Torrance, Downtown, La Canada, Long Beach and Orange County.

Business and corporate law includes start-up decisions such as entity selection and formation whether corporations, limited liability companies, general partnerships, limited partnerships, or, for certain professionals and their related entities, limited liability partnerships. The established business enterprise whether California, nationally or internationally based needing a Southern California attorney will typically look to the Law Office of Alan M. Insul to fill the gap between limited outside legal representation and having the luxury of in-house legal counsel. MORE...

CONTACT OUR OFFICE
Subscribe

The Los Angeles based Law Office of Alan M. Insul limits practice to Real Estate Law for clients internationally, and nationally including the San Fernando valley, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Culver City, Glendale, Burbank, Pasadena, Santa Clarita, Semi Valley, Calabasas, Agoura, Agoura Hills, Westlake, Palos Verdes, Torrance, Downtown, La Canada, Long Beach and Orange County.

California Real Estate Law is a dynamic ever changing area of law demanding that owners of residential income property, commercial property, industrial property, or office buildings, as well as developers, investors, contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, lenders, brokers, escrow companies, and other real estate professionals have current effective legal advice for both transactions as well as matters in various stages of litigation.

CONTACT OUR OFFICE
Subscribe