Property Rights, Entitlements, and Interest Disputes and Litigation

The firm provides legal assistance to protect the rights of property owners when an outsider attempts to do something that may hurt or adversely affect your property and land.  Property rights abuses take different forms, but government or corporate violators are never justified. Another significant aspect of property rights are disputes people and business have over entitlements or interests in real estate or leases.

Examples of property rights claims and disputes that the firm has handled include the following:

• Subdivision Map Act and Subdivided Lands Act Violations
• Real Property Encroachments and Ocean View Disputes
• Contests on Application of Government Regulations that Limit Property or Construction Rights
• Disputes and Litigation over Easements or Covenants to Land, including quiet title and violations of warranties
• Title and Ownership Disputes, including challenges to ownership, lien priorities, and financial work-outs

The property entitlement process involves securing legal approval for the right to develop property for a specific use, which is often far more complex and time-consuming that one can imagine. The firm has also represented clients involved in disputes over both entitlements and real estate interests such as:

• A mechanic’s lien or competing lien priorities filed against your property, clouding the title
• Defects in the title resulting from failure to file or discovery previously recorded liens or judgments
• Permit approval process and disputes for zoning, landscaping, utilities, or conditional use
• Homeowner or Property-owner Association disputes, involving neighbors, board members or directors, and/or third parties.

Whether you’re a homeowner or business, the Law Office of Joseph M. Kar PC is a strong team member to have on your side when you need the expertise of a legal professional and counselor with years of experience in property rights.

Tsao v. Kristi Funk, MD,

L.A.S.C. Case No. SC 096 825.

Condominium Owners Dispute over Repairs of Minor Water Leak. World renowned Breast Cancer surgeon was sued for water leak by a neighbor in Santa Monica.  The firm was hired to assist in the litigation after the insurance company did not immediately accept the tender of defense.  Mr. Kar successfully moved to dismiss the complaint and strike offensive claims.  Shortly after discovery started, the matter was resolved to the client’s satisfaction.  Result: Case resolved favorably and expeditiously.

Jewel Box Theatre Company v. Konce, et al.,

L.A.S.C. Case No. BC 287 230.

Landlord Leased Dilapidated Ground Floor of a Residential Building to a Four-Stage Equity Theatre Group. A small theatre group signed a commercial lease for a four-stage theatre on the ground floor of a historical property in Hollywood, CA zoned only for residential units.  The landlord disclaimed liability for the commercial lease and argued that the tenant was responsible for obtaining a zoning variance for the ground floor despite never having knowledge of the zoning restriction or ever owning the property.  During the tenancy, the theatre group also suffered with really gross conditions such as fecal flooding from the dilapidated plumbing and landlord’s regular delay in repairs to the residential units.  Mr. Kar was hired to represent the theatre company in an unlawful detainer proceeding as well as to prosecute the landlord for fraud in the lease, breach of lease, and other tenancy claims.  After litigation commenced, another sewage leak caused the theatre company was forced to vacate and transfer thousands of pounds of theatre equipment.  Result: Confidential Six-Figure Settlement.

Ahn, et al. v. Yao, et al.,

L.A.S.C. Case No. BC 362 109.

New Owner Botches Condominium Conversion in Building Occupied by Elderly and Disabled Persons and their families. A new owner of a residential apartment building in Encino, CA took possession of 23 units and attempted to sell units to incumbent tenants without a valid final public report, and by implementing coercive “buy or get out in 30 days” marketing tactics.  The owner employed his manager and real estate agent to hold tenant sales meetings and engaged in dangerous cosmetic construction projects without using proper safeguards, including removing and storing new and used toilets in public hallways and hiring day-laborers from “Home Depot” as contractors working in occupied units.  The firm successfully obtained a preliminary injunction barring the landlord from issuing further improper eviction notices as well as prevailed at the first trial with a final verdict of over $1,000,000, and issuance of a permanent injunction and penalty damages.  Result: Case partial settled and partially reversed on appeal.