Posts tagged California Court of Appeal
Loan Renegotiation is "New Phase" in Lending Relationship, May be Considered in whether Lender Breached Duty of Care

Back in March, a California Bankruptcy Court ruled “Franz Kafka lives [and] he works at Bank of America,” describing the bank as “heartless” in improperly foreclosing on houses, and summarized the homeowners’ ordeal with the bank as a “Kafkaesque nightmare.”

Now, closing out the year, a California Appeals Court has gotten in on the lender liability action. (Rossetta v. CitiMortgage Inc. (Dec. 18, 2017.)) This time the bank is CitiMortgage, and instead of improper foreclosures, the case involves an over two-year-long home loan modification application process.

Read More
Courts Of Appeal Give Yelp Arguments Re: Reviewer Anonymity One Star

In the ongoing battle over First Amendment rights to anonymity online, two recent California Court of Appeal decisions involving lawsuits against anonymous reviewers on Yelp.com (together with its owner, Yelp Inc., “Yelp”) provide a tentative roadmap for businesses and individuals seeking protection from defamatory online posts.

Read More
California Court of Appeal Clarifies Good Faith Defense Against Fraudulent Transfer Claims

In its recent decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Yang, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District addressed a split of authority regarding the good faith defense to fraudulent transfer claims in California.

In 1986, California adopted, with minor alterations, the Uniform Law Commission’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act as Civil Code sections 3439, et seq.  Effective January 1, 2016, that chapter was amended and renamed the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (the “UVTA").  The UVTA creates a civil cause of action by a creditor against a debtor, the debtor’s transferees, and/or the subsequent transferees of the debtor’s transferees to void transfers made by the debtor to defraud the creditor or prevent the creditor from collecting on his claim.  Civ. Code § 3439.07(a).  A creditor’s claim is defined broadly to include almost any right to payment, including an accrued cause of action or a judgment.  Civ. Code § 3439.01(b).

Read More
Issue Spotter: In California, Sometimes Written Contracts Aren’t Worth the Paper They’re Written On

A 2013 California Supreme Court case has brought about a sea change in how far parties can rely on their written agreements, with the repercussions playing out in real time. 

The "parol evidence rule" provides that, when parties enter into a written contract intended to be the final expression of their agreement, they can't use extrinsic evidence (evidence outside the agreement, like prior or contemporaneous oral agreements or statements) to alter or add to it. This is why contracts commonly contain an “integration clause”, essentially saying this is the final and only expression of the parties’ agreement. Outside evidence can be used to clear up places where the contract is ambiguous--but it can’t contradict what’s in the agreement. 

Read More