Disaster Relief to States and Cities Is Both Right and Good: Part 1 of 2

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

In this first of a series of columns about federal relief to state and local governments, UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan provides the economic background to explain how unprecedented these times are and argues that supporting cities and states is essential to surviving this crisis.

Read More

Zieve, Brodnax & Steele, LLP v. Dhindsa

Docket: F079665(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 13, 2020

Judge: Donald R. Franson, Jr.

Areas of Law: Banking, Real Estate & Property Law

The owner of the unencumbered 25 percent interest in the real property is entitled to a proportionate share of surplus proceeds. The Court of Appeal's conclusion is based on Caito v. United California Bank (1978) 20 Cal.3d 694. The court held that the 1990 enactment of Civil Code section 2924k did not change the principles set forth in Caito. Applying this principle about the rights of junior lienors to the undisputed facts of this case, the court held that the creditor holding the second deed of trust encumbering an undivided 75 percent interest in the real property was entitled only to a 75 percent share of the surplus funds. The court held that the remaining 25 percent must be distributed to the person who owned the interest that was not encumbered by the second deed of trust. Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court's judgment.

Sosa v. CashCall, Inc.

Docket: G056974(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 13, 2020

Judge: Moore

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Consumer Law

Defendants CashCall, Inc. and LoanMe, Inc. (collectively “the lenders”), accessed thousands of credit reports and mailed loan offers to the consumers. Plaintiff Alexis Sosa was among those consumers. Sosa sued the lenders for accessing her credit report. During discovery, Sosa asked the lenders: of the consumers who were mailed offers, how many were actually given loans? The trial court found Sosa’s interrogatory to be irrelevant and granted the lenders’ motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeal disagreed: Sosa's interrogatory was relevant to the lenders' intent. "the trial court’s rulings dealt a 'one-two punch' to [Sosa's] lawsuit: the court first prohibited Sosa from obtaining relevant evidence; then the court dismissed her case, in part, for lack of relevant evidence. Thus, we reverse the court’s granting of the lenders’ motion for summary judgment."

Nguyen v. Ford

Docket: H046809(Sixth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 13, 2020

Judge: Danner

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Legal Ethics, Professional Malpractice & Ethics

Nguyen worked as a dentist until she was terminated. Nguyen hired attorney Ford, who filed a discrimination lawsuit. The federal district court entered judgment against Nguyen. Ford’s retainer agreement with Nguyen specifically excluded appeals. Nguyen hired Ford to represent her in an appeal and signed a separate retainer agreement. Nguyen alleges that during the appeal to the Ninth Circuit, Ford charged exorbitant fees and costs, and caused unnecessary delays. In April 2015, Ford successfully moved to withdraw as counsel. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment against Nguyen. Nguyen sued Ford for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, stating “Although [Ford] continued to represent [Nguyen] in the district court tribunal, [Nguyen] had to retain new appellate counsel” and that, but for Ford’s untimely filing of a brief in the district court case, summary judgment would not have been granted against her. The trial court dismissed the action as untimely (Code Civ. Proc., 340.6(a)). The court of appeal affirmed. No reasonable factfinder could conclude it was objectively reasonable for Nguyen to believe Ford continued to represent her in the district court action. Once Ford filed notices in that case describing herself as Nguyen’s former attorney and stating she was placing a lien for on any judgment in Nguyen’s favor, any objectively reasonable client would have understood that Ford was no longer representing Nguyen.

In re K.T.

Docket: B301285(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 13, 2020

Judge: Frances Rothschild

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Court of Appeal reversed the dependency court's order concerning father's baby daughter. The court held that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering father to complete a parenting education program because substantial evidence did not support a finding that, in order to protect his daughter, he needed to participate in a parenting course. In this case, the record contained uncontroverted evidence that after the baby was placed with father at the detention hearing, he provided appropriate care for her; his home was safe and had the necessary baby supplies; he was meeting the baby's needs and had a nurturing and healthy relationship with her; and father had completed a formal parenting program in 2015.