• Claim that Sellers failed to disclose drainage, leaks, mold, and water intrusion issues regarding the subject property.

  • Plaintiffs’ home was land-locked.  They sought an easement by necessity.

  • Claim for specific performance.  Seller claimed her broker exceeded her authority.  Plaintiffs accepted damages in settlement.

  • Claim of commission owed under the terms of a Buyer’s Representation Agreement.

  • Homeowners blocked the development of single-family homes on a hillside area of the local municipality.  The area was claimed to be the natural habitat of big-horn sheep.  The matter resolved when the protestors and the city agreed to use their efforts to secure state funding along with private funds to purchase the property.

  • Seven lawsuits were pending between the parties regarding liens in favor of a bank recorded against units in a co-operative.  There were procedural challenges to the legitimacy of the liens.

  • As a result of a mistake in the legal description of a trust deed, a lien was removed from title.  The junior lienholder and the title company settled the claim with the beneficiary.

  • Claim for quiet title and mismanagement of commercial real estate.

  • Children of a deceased member of a family-owned real estate business sought to dissolve the holdings of the company per the Operating Agreement.

  • Suit between a homeowner and her landscape architect concerning the payment of excessive deposits on work that was not performed.

  • Neighbor dispute over trees roots.

  • Suit for the collection of a Note secured by real property.

  • Homeowner sought a stay on foreclosure action due to alleged predatory lending practices.

  • Claim of easement in Malibu by a land-locked property owner for a roadway to the main road.

  • Plaintiff loaned Defendant money to purchase a home. The loan was evidenced by a written agreement and a promissory note secured by a deed of trust. Plaintiff’s company employed Defendant and loaned money to Defendant so she could purchase a home closer to the office. Plaintiff loaned the funds for purchase of a specific home that Defendant showed Plaintiff prior to the purchase. Pursuant to the terms of the deed of trust, Defendant was not permitted to lease the property without the consent or knowledge of Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made misrepresentations to Plaintiff and breached the terms of the Note and Deed of Trust when she (1) used the funds to purchase a house different from the one Defendant showed Plaintiff; (2) pocketed the difference between the actual house purchased and the more expensive house upon which the loan was based; (3) placed title to the house in the name of Defendant’s family trust, not Defendant’s own individual name; and (4) after purchasing the house, she leased the house to tenants without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent.

  • Claim for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty by the purchaser of a home in Malibu advertised by a dual broker as being 15,000 square feet when in fact the home was 11,000 to 12,000 square feet.

  • Claim of seller misrepresentation regarding the condition of the various systems of a single-family residence.

  • Claim for judicial foreclosure on loans totaling $100 million secured by trust deeds against the subject property.

  • Real estate company claims accountant malpractice when the IRS assessed millions of dollars of under-reported income.

  • Plaintiff is the owner of a single-family home. Plaintiff executed a Deed of Trust with Defendants as beneficiaries. The Trust Deed secured a $500,000 promissory note. Thereafter, Plaintiff and Defendants executed a modification of the note to add $400,000 to the principal balance, making the total principal balance on the Note $900,000. The modification did not modify the Trust Deed to include the additional $400,000. Plaintiff alleges that a Notice of Default was improperly recorded. Plaintiff contends there was no default and the Notice of Default improperly included the $400,000 modification. Defendants also failed to provide an itemization of the default and outstanding balance, despite Plaintiff’s request for one. Plaintiff filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief on grounds that Defendants initiated a improper foreclosure.

  • Petitioner seeks an order releasing a mechanic’s lien from her property. Respondent is a general contractor. Respondent’s claim of lien was recorded but he failed to foreclose on it within 90 days. Petitioner asks that the Court order the lien released under CC Section 8460.

  • Petitioner seeks to deposit surplus funds with the Court generated by a trustee’s sale of property. The amount to be deposited is $200,000. Petitioner is the trustee and determined there are conflicting claims to the proceeds.

  • Plaintiff invested in five properties with Defendant. Plaintiff contributed capital to the development and purchase of the properties. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant stole money from the holding companies through improper checks and loans. Plaintiff claims Defendant stole over $8 million. When caught, Defendant promised to repay the stolen money but failed to do so. Plaintiff alleges breach of the operating agreements of the holding companies and breach of the fiduciary duty owed by Defendant to Plaintiff.

  • Plaintiff resides in a single-family home. He executed a deed of trust. Defendant One is the loan servicer. Defendant Two is the beneficiary of the Deed of Trust. Defendant Three is the trustee. Plaintiff defaulted on the underlying loan and a Notice of Default was recorded. Plaintiff applied for a loan modification and was denied on grounds of insufficient income. Thereafter, Plaintiff submitted a renewed loan modification based on changed financial circumstances at the recommendation of Defendant One. Plaintiff’s wife was now contributing to more than 50% of the household income. With the knowledge that the renewed loan modification application was pending and complete, Defendants did not cease the foreclosure proceedings. Plaintiff filed an action to enjoin the sale.

  • Plaintiff is the owner of a condominium unit. She obtained a reverse mortgage from Defendant. At the time, she was 67 years old and disabled with $50,000 in equity in the home. Plaintiff alleges that because of Defendant’s pressure and deceptive practices, Plaintiff obtained a reverse mortgage that robbed her of her equity and her home.

  • Plaintiff owns property in Bel Aire and Defendants are neighboring landowners. Plaintiff’s property is located above Defendants’ property. Plaintiff’s property has sweeping views of Century City, Westwood and downtown Los Angeles throughout the home. Plaintiff entered into a purchase and sale contract with a non-party for $3 million. Escrow opened on the property. The same day Defendants informed Plaintiff that they intended to build a second story to their property and that their intent to do so would interfere and affect the views from Plaintiff’s property. Defendants told Plaintiff that Plaintiff was required to inform the purchaser of their intent to build up their property, because it would affect the views from Plaintiff’s property; Plaintiff made the disclosure and the buyer canceled the agreement. Thereafter, Defendants’ friend made a lower offer for the property in the amount of $2.2 million. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants never intended to build up their property but told Plaintiff that they were going to do so to interfere with Plaintiff’s sale agreement. Plaintiff filed an action for damages.

  • Plaintiff is the owner of residential property located in Brentwood. Defendants are the owners of the adjacent lot. Defendants’ predecessor-in-interest granted to Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest an easement over a portion of their private driveway. Pursuant to a 1959 Agreement, the easement was amended slightly in size and provided that both parties agreed to execute any additional documents necessary to perfect title to the easement. When Plaintiff purchased their lot and began the remodeling of the single-family home, they submitted plans to the City for approval. The City indicated the plans could not be approved unless Plaintiff submitted a Covenant and Agreement for Community Driveway executed by Plaintiff and Defendant. The proposed driveway would traverse a portion of Defendants’ property that was already included in the easement created in the original easement and the easement created by the 1959 Agreement. Defendants refused to execute the Covenant and attempted to negotiate, demanding new consideration for the Covenant. Plaintiff asserted the 1959 Agreement and the original easement required Defendants to execute the Covenant to preserve the easement, such that no new consideration was required.

  • Plaintiff and Defendant are adjoining landowners. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has erected a fence that unreasonably obstructs Plaintiff’s view of the ocean from her property. Defendant has also planted oak saplings that will mature and block the view as well. Plaintiff filed an action based on the CC&Rs applicable to the properties.

  • Plaintiffs and Defendant are neighbors. Defendant allegedly cut or trimmed Plaintiffs’ trees down without permission.

  • Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ properties are separated by an alley. Defendants’ properties house two commercial businesses, a shipping company and private practice psychotherapy offices. Defendants have monopolized the alley between the properties, using the alley for overflow parking, a basketball court, group meetings, food trucks, a smoking section and an automotive workspace. When Plaintiffs complained to the police, Defendants retaliated, and Plaintiffs suffered property damage and noise disturbances because of Defendants’ activities. Plaintiffs filed an action to enjoin the nuisance created by Defendants’ activities in the alley.

  • Plaintiff alleges that Defendants trespassed on his property in the Pacific Palisades and dumped 1500 cubic yards of dirt and materials excavated and/or removed from a construction project in Santa Monica. Defendants allegedly cut open a locked gate to access Plaintiff’s property without his permission and deposited the dirt.

  • Plaintiff is the son-in-law of decedents, who are the parents of his ex-wife. Plaintiff alleges that during their lifetime, he performed maintenance services on their rental property and they promised the apartment building would be Plaintiff’s after they died.

  • Plaintiff purchased certain residential property from Defendant. Defendant was obligated to fully transfer possession of the property within 30 days of the close of escrow. Defendant failed to do so, and as a result, Plaintiff was left to obtain full possession by relocating the tenant on the property at its own expense. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement and damages in the amount of $150,000 for removal of the tenant and acquisition of full possession of the property.

  • Plaintiff leased commercial premises from Defendant based on representations that the premises were code-compliant and safe for commercial use. Plaintiff discovered after executing the lease that the building was not code-compliant and was in fact dangerous for use. Plaintiff was forced to spend $50,000 in tenant improvements but the property was still unsuitable for use. Plaintiff filed an action for rescission of the lease and damages arising from the misrepresentations.

  • Plaintiff and Defendant are joint owners of real property located in Beverly Hills. Parties entered into an agreement for the joint ownership and operation of the property, with Plaintiff holding a 78% interest and Defendant holding a 22% interest. Plaintiff claims Defendant has breached his fiduciary duty by failing to disclose substantial judgment liens against him, failing to pay for his share of the monthly loan against the property and refusing to sign a legitimate, good-faith, arms-length offer to sell the property. Plaintiff seeks to partition the property.

  • Plaintiff purchased two lots from Defendant One. The grant deeds purportedly conveyed easements over properties owned by Defendant Two. Plaintiff filed an action alleging fraud, breach of contract, and related claims against Defendants.

  • Parties are neighboring landowners in Malibu. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant is maintaining a “spite fence” consisting of a row of trees exceeding 10 feet in height. Plaintiffs allege that the fence blocks their ocean view.

  • Plaintiffs hired Defendants who are landscapers to perform a “Home Improvement” construction contract involving Plaintiffs home in Malibu. Defendants failed to complete the project in the time agreed.

  • Plaintiff and Defendant are mother and daughter. They each own one-half of two properties located in Venice. The parties agreed to transfer their respective 50% interests in each property to each other, so that Plaintiff would own all of one property and Defendant would own the other. Plaintiff executed the deed and made the transfer of the property going to Defendant. However, Defendant refuses to transfer her 50% interest in the other property. Plaintiffs filed this action to cancel the quitclaim deed she executed.

  • Plaintiff is a homeowner who hired Defendant to remodel his home. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant performed the work improperly and hired unlicensed subcontractors.

  • Plaintiff and Defendant are neighboring business owners in a business plaza. They share a common wall. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s remodeling construction physically damaged Plaintiff’s premises and caused severe noise disruption, which is particularly damaging because Plaintiff runs a day spa.

  • Defendant owns real property and has begun development and construction at the property. Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s construction plans violate the CC&Rs that run with the property and apply to all lots located in the tract. Plaintiff alleges the plans violate the CC&Rs as to the following: (1) requirement that all construction plans be approved by the architectural committee; (2) there is a prohibition against any “noxious or offensive trade or activity” and any activity that “may be or become a nuisance to the neighborhood”; and (3) there is a requirement that lot owners “take adequate provision for proper drainage.”

  • Declaratory relief action to determine if homeowners can build a two-story home in violation of the CC&Rs when two other homes in the tract have violated the restrictions on height.

  • Plaintiffs allege that Defendant took advantage of their advanced age and mental and physical conditions when he forced them to retain him as their real estate agent and broker in the sale of their home. Plaintiffs allege Defendant listed their home at below market value and attempted to sell it to undesirable buyers.​

Real Estate

​​​​​​​​​​Representative Cases