The borrower has no post-sale redemption right in California’s nonjudicial foreclosure process.
Contracting parties build liquidated damages provisions into their agreements in a variety of contexts.
The long moratorium on most evictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the de facto shutdown of the court system for civil matters, caused most California landlords to defer unlawful detainer and related landlord-tenant litigation over the past two-and-a-half years.
In 1963, the California legislature became concerned that private landowners were “bar[ring] public access to their land for recreational uses out of fear of incurring tort liability.”
Two cases from different appellate districts in California have come to different conclusions about the enforceability of co-tenancy provisions. This article describes co-tenancy provisions, discusses liquidated damages and alternative performance, and then reviews Grand Prospect and JJD in detail to compare the reasoning in each case.
The Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Canyon Vineyard Estates I, LLC v. DeJoria1 (see summary at page 544, below) sidesteps several potentially troublesome conveyancing issues by focusing on the statutory authorization for “conservation easements” and giving only limited attention to more prosaic principles of traditional California real property law.