Legal Updates
LEGAL UPDATES
It is important for us to constantly educate ourselves on new laws and court opinions affecting our clients. Our attorneys regularly research updates in the law to ensure that we are at the top of our game in providing accurate, timely legal advice to our clients. These legal updates pages are edited weekly to ensure that our clients are receiving this important information regularly and consistently.
These updates are published as a free service to our clients and friends, and are intended only for viewers in California. The material contained herein is provided for general informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice, advertising or a solicitation. If you wish to receive specific information about any subject covered in one of these updates, please contact the author.
Should you have any concerns or questions whatsoever, please do not hesitate to contact the author of the particular update at the e-mail address or telephone number provided below the update.
JUNE 2009
Labor/Employment Law Update
The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, handed down the Olvera v. El Pollo Loco opinion on April 27, 2009, finding certain arbitration terms in an employment agreement unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. The court said the required arbitration clause in the agreement was unenforceable, because there was inequitable bargaining power between the employer and the low-wage employees. Further, the court found that the employees did not make an informed decision because the explanatory materials provided them were inadequate and misleading. Valid, enforceable arbitration clauses in employment contracts can save time, money and headaches down the road.
Do you provide adequate explanatory materials to potential employees? For further information please contact Reggie F. Borkum, Esq., at 858-551-2440 or via e-mail at rborkum@bkflaw.com.
Estate Planning Update
In the April 24, 2009 Estate of Earley decision, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, upheld the trial court’s decision to deny a petition to admit a holographic will because the petition was untimely. A holographic will is an informal will that will be admitted to probate, generally, if the signature and the material provisions are in the testator’s handwriting. In Earley, the decedent’s cousin became administrator of the estate and did not find the holographic will until months after the court determined that the decedent was intestate (without a will). The court could not admit the holographic will to probate because it was not found and submitted within the required time limit. Therefore, the decedent’s wishes as to his estate could not be carried out after his death.
These problems can be avoided by ensuring that you have executed a formal, witnessed will that is safely in the custody of the law firm that prepared it. For further information please contact Ashley E. Teague, Esq., at 858-551-2440 or via e-mail at ateague@bkflaw.com.
Banking Law Update
Banking Law Update
On June 1, 2009 the California Supreme Court upheld a bank’s ability to use certain deposited benefit funds to cover overdraft and related charges. Miller v. Bank of America involved a class action lawsuit against Bank of America challenging the bank’s practice of recouping overdraft and insufficient funds fees from the customers’ Social Security and other benefit payments. In holding that this practice is allowed, the Court distinguished its decision in Kruger v. Wells Fargo by stating that recouping an overdraft charge is not a setoff of independent debt external to the bank. Kruger involved payments made to an external credit card company. The Miller decision, however, involved internal payments within the bank. In allowing bank to seek repayment for overdraft charges or insufficient funds the Court stated:
“Indeed, an overdraft may be the result of the bank honoring, rather than bouncing, a rent or utility payment made prior to the deposit of benefit funds. Requiring banks to dishonor checks can harm the customer’s credit rating, result in the customer’s incurring fees, and affect the customer’s relationship with merchants. In this case, policy concerns about the setoff of independent debt-at issue in Krueger- are not present here, where the credits and debits occur in a single account.”
Consequently, how the accounts and internal controls are structured within the bank will ultimately influence how a bank may recover these overdraft and insufficient funds fees. For more information please contact Michael D. Paa, Esq., at 858-551-2440 or via e-mail at mpaa@bkflaw.com.
Banking Law Update
On May 5, 2009 the United States District Court upheld portions of a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo. In Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo & Company the plaintiffs alleged that Wells Fargo posted debit card transactions in a manner to maximize insufficient funds penalties. The plaintiffs alleged that Wells Fargo would deduct larger transactions first, with the intent to draw the account negative, and proceeded to deduct the smaller transactions after the account was negative. In holding that the plaintiff’s may have a claim against Wells Fargo, the court reasoned “the fact remains that under California law the discretion that is conferred for sequencing (posting the withdrawals) must be exercised in good faith and specifically may not be exercised so as to increase penalty revenue.” Consequently, it appears that Wells Fargo’s practice of sequencing transactions may be permissible, provided it is in good faith.
For more information contact Michael Paa, Esq., at 858-551-2440 or at mpaa@bkflaw.com.
Landlord/Tenant Title Update
H.R. 2397: ADA Notification Act of 2009
On May 13, 2009, H.R. 2397, ADA Notification Act of 2009, was introduced to the legislature by California Representative Duncan Hunter. If passed it will amend title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to require a plaintiff to provide a defendant at least 90 days to correct a violation of such title voluntarily before the plaintiff may commence a civil action. The bill is currently under review by the House Committee on the Judiciary.
For further information please contact Scott Miller, Jr., Esq. or Michael Weitz, Esq., at 858-551-2440 or via e-mail at smiller@bkflaw.com or mweitz@bkflaw.com.
Employee Pension Plans/ERISA Update
Employee Pension Plans/ERISA Update
The Ninth Circuit federal Court of Appeals recently held in Vaughn v. Bay Environmental Management, Inc. that a former employee who received a full distribution of his defined contribution pension plan account balance had standing as a plan participant to file suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) to recover losses occasioned by a breach of fiduciary duty. ERISA is a federal law regulating, in part, the participation, vesting, and funding of qualified employee pension benefit plans. Fiduciaries of ERISA-covered plans are required to prudently invest the plan’s assets. If a plan fiduciary fails to meet the “prudent investor” standard, the fiduciary and/or the employer may be subject to extensive and costly litigation.
Are you sure that your company is complying with ERISA’s standards? For further information please contact Ashley E. Teague, Esq., at 858-551-2440 or via e-mail at ateague@bkflaw.com.
JULY 2009
Employment Law Update
The Second District Court of Appeal recently ruled in Owen v. Macy’s, Inc. that “[i]f an express written company policy forewarns new employees that their compensation package does not include paid vacation during their initial employment, then no vacation pay is earned and none is vested.” In Owen the former employee argued that her right to vacation pay accrued on her first day of employment, rather than after six months of continuous employment as indicated in the employee handbook. In citing the importance of outlining when vacation pay accrues in the employee handbook, the Owen court stated “it is clear from the Robinsons’ employee handbook that the amount of vacation time earned during the first six months of employment is zero.” Because providing vacation pay is a benefit and not required under state law, companies providing such benefits should clearly define when and how vacation pay or related benefits accrue.
Does your employee handbook adequately outline when and how employee benefits accrue? For more information regarding employee handbooks or employment law in general, contact either Reggie Borkum, Esq. at rborkum@bkflaw.com or Michael Paa, Esq. at mpaa@bkflaw.com.
Business and Corporations Law
A California Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District recently interpreted Corporations Code sec. 709 in Haah v. Kim. Section 709 allows a shareholder to bring an action to invalidate the appointment or election of directors of a corporation where any shareholder claims to have been denied to the right to vote. In Haah, the shareholders had entered into agreements to take shares in the corporation, but had not yet been issued those shares. Even so, the court permitted the shareholders to bring a sec. 709 action, and the directors’ elections were invalidated.
If you are unsure of the formalities involved in issuing shares and obligations owed to shareholders, or for further information, please contact Ashley E. Teague, Esq., at 858-551-2440 or via e-mail at ateague@bkflaw.com.
Tax Law Update
On June 17, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued an opinion indicating that a taxpayer who overstates the basis on his tax return and thus reduces his taxable gross income is subject to the three year rather than a six year limitations period for the IRS to assess a tax deficiency. Gross income is calculated by deducting the total amount of money received (gross receipts) minus the basis. By inflating the basis a taxpayer can reduce the gross income because a larger amount of basis will be subtracted from the gross receipts. In Bakersfield Energy Partners, L.P. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the court was asked to decide whether overstating the basis to reduce gross income was actually an omission of gross income for the purposes of extending the limitations period. The IRS contended that the overstatement of basis resulted from a “sham transaction, a transaction lacking economic substance that had no business purpose…availed for tax avoidance purpose.” However, in following precedent set by the Supreme Court nearly fifty years before, the court reasoned that an overstatement of basis is not the same as omitting amounts from gross income for the purposes of extending the IRS’ limitations period to assess a deficiency.
For more information on tax and partnership issues contact Michael Paa, Esq. at 858-551-2440 or mpaa@bkflaw.com.
Tax Law Update
Recently, the California Court of Appeals Fourth Appellate District decided that real property changes ownership for tax purposes when an income beneficiary’s rights transfer to his children. The case involved a shopping center held in trust by a family in Orange County. Upon the death of the income beneficiary father, the father’s share of income was transferred to his children and the Assessor’s office regarded this as a transfer of ownership. Plaintiff taxpayers argued that merely shifting the income beneficiaries from one party to another is not a change of ownership because the taxpayers were merely receiving income from the property but not the legal title. On June 24, 2009 the court in Phelps v. Orange County Assessment Appeals Board stated “that by receiving rent income from the property as a beneficiary, [the decendent taxpayer] had a beneficial use of the property, which passed to his successor beneficiaries on his death.”
For more information on these and related tax issues contact Michael D. Paa, Esq. at 858-551-2440 or at mpaa@bkflaw.com.
Real Estate/Business Law Update
On July 29, 2009 the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District in California in a case concerning construction on real property ruled that: 1) a building contractor is not entitled to any compensation if it performs unlicensed work and 2) that unlicensed building contractors must return all compensation received without an offset for even the value of materials or services.
In White v. Cridlebaugh, a building contractor, JC Master Builders, Inc., contracted with the White family to assist with the construction of improvements on real estate. Laws applicable to the contracting business indicate that for a corporation to be licensed as a contractor, a Responsible Managing Officer (“RMO”) must be licensed by the State and must be actively engaged on the project. JC Master Builders, Inc.’s RMO was absent two years prior to and throughout the White’s construction project on their real property. As such, the court found that JC Master Builders, Inc. was transacting as an unlicensed contracting company and was not entitled to any compensation as a result.
While the Whites previously paid the contractors, the court further held that JC Master Builders, Inc. could not even offset any of the compensation already paid for materials provided or for services rendered in connection with construction on the real estate. Specifically, the court held “[i]f reductions for offset, indemnity, and contribution were allowed, deterrence of unlicensed work would be diminished.” In so holding, the court stated, “‘all compensation paid to the unlicensed contractor for performance of any act or contract’ means that unlicensed contractors are required to return all compensation received without reductions or offsets for the value of material or services provided.”
For further information on similar Real Estate or Business Law issues, contact Michael D. Paa, Esq. at mpaa@bkflaw.com or 858-551-2440.
Corporate Law Update
In a recent opinion, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District determined that minority directors in a public benefit corporation may recover attorney fees for a suit against the majority directors for disclosure of documents when the minority directors are the prevailing party and the outcome benefits the public. Specifically, in Choi v. Orange County Great Park Corporation the board of directors were searching for a new CEO for the corporation. The corporation received upwards of 150 resumes for the position yet the top two candidates had considerable relationships with the majority board members. Consequently, the minority board members filed suit to gain access to all resumes and CEO search records. The majority board members eventually settled with the minority members granting them access to some of the resumes and related documents. In California, a court may award attorney fees when a prevailing party brought suit to enforce an important right affecting public interest. In reversing the trial court’s order and granting attorney fees, the Appellate Court stated that the minority directors were the prevailing party because they gained access to the documents originally withheld by the majority directors, despite the fact that the lawsuit settled and did not go to trial. Additionally, the Appellate Court reasoned that the lawsuit to inspect the search records was in the public interest because “Plaintiffs’ request for documents to determine how the search had been conducted to date was an act to maintain the integrity of the process itself, a significant benefit to the public, protecting its interest.”
The inner workings of directors’ boards can be complex and contentious. For assistance with corporate board matters or other general corporate legal issues contact Michael D. Paa, Esq., at mpaa@bkflaw.com or at 858-551-2440.
AUGUST 2009
AUGUST 2009
Real Estate Law Update
Recently, the Second Appellate District based in Los Angeles ruled that California state law trumps local municipal rules concerning rent control. In Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P. et al. v City of Los Angeles, the City attempted to enforce a rent control policy against a developer creating low income housing. Specifically, a City ordinance required any new project over a certain size to limit the monthly rents charged for affordable housing units. However, under California state law, the Costa-Hawkins Act grants a landlord the right to establish the initial rental rate for a unit. In holding that state law preempts the City ordinance, the court stated:
“[f]orcing [the developer] to provide affordable housing units at regulated rents in order to obtain project approval is clearly hostile to the right afforded under the Costa-Hawkins Act to establish the initial rental rate for a dwelling unit.”
For more information on real property issues facing developers contact Michael D. Paa, Esq. at mpaa@bkflaw.com or 858-551-2440.
Insurance Law Update
The California Court of Appeal ruled recently in Superior Dispatch, Inc. v. Insurance Corporation of New York that California Insurance Regulations s 2695.4(a) requires an insurer to notify its insured claimant of contractual limitations provisions and other policy provisions that may apply to the claim, regardless of whether the insured is represented by counsel. If an insurer fails to notify their insured claimant of such a provision, this failure can establish an equitable estoppel to rely on the provision.
It is essential as an insurer to give the required actual notice of contractual limitations provision to your insured claimants, or risk losing the ability to later assert such limitations as a defense. For further information please contact Roger L. McNitt, Esq., at 858-551-2440 or via e-mail at rmcnitt@bkflaw.com .
Labor/Employment Law Update
Recently, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District reiterated California’s unwillingness to enforce broad non-compete agreements for employment matters. In The Retirement Group v. James Galante, The Retirement Group (“TRG”) sought an injunction enjoining former employees from soliciting TRG customers. The appellate court rejected TRG’s request for an injunction stating that broad non-solicitation language in the employment contract is unenforceable. In upholding the Supreme Court of California’s decision in Edwards v. Arthur Anderson LLP, the appellate court reiterated that broadly construed non-solicitation agreements are not enforceable and may only be enforceable to protect trade secrets. Specifically, the court states:
“[t]hus it is not the solicitation of the former employer’s customers, but is instead the misuse of trade secret information, that may be enjoined.”
Broad non-solicitation clauses are often included in employment contracts. Yet, using such broad language is often unenforceable and can be used by a terminated employee against employers in wrongful termination lawsuits. Blanchard, Krasner & French assists many of its corporate clients with related employment agreement issues. For more information contact Reggie Borkum, Esq. or Michael Paa, Esq. at 858-551-2440 or via e-mail at rborkum@bkflaw.com or mpaa@bkflaw.com.
Secured Lending/Bankruptcy Update
In a recent case in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California, the court held that a bankruptcy plan for reorganization may be sufficient to create a security agreement. In In re Nacio Systems v. Nacio Systems, bankrupt company Nacio California entered into a Chapter 11 reorganization. As part of the reorganization, Nacio California received $500,000.00 from Nacio Investment Group in exchange for a lien on the reorganized debtor’s assets. This reorganization plan and subsequent lien on the reorganized assets was a valid contract, however Nacio California’s subsequent purchaser, Nacio Nevada, argued that a reorganization plan alone was not an adequate security agreement. In rejecting Nacio Nevada’s argument, the court states:
“There is no magic form of security agreement. The confirmed plan in the Nacio California case is signed by debtor, clearly intends that Nacio Investment Group have a security interest, and clearly describes the collateral…The court accordinyly concludes that the plan gave Nacio Investment Group an enforceable interest in the collateral.”
For lenders, obtaining valid and enforceable security agreements and liens is a necessary component of business. For more information concerning loan documents including security agreements, lien enforcementor related lending issues, contact Michael D. Paa, Esq. at mpaa@bkflaw.com or at 858-551-2440.
Securities Regulation Update
Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 prohibits “short swing sales”. Essentially, Section 16(b) requires beneficial owners of over 10% of a stock, officers and directors of a particular company to disgorge any gains resulting from the purchase and sale of a particular stock within any six month period. Recently, in Dreiling v. America Online Inc., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to extend a Section 16(b) claim where accounting fraud may exist, but the beneficial ownership relationship does not. In Dreiling, America Online (“AOL”) and InfoSpace entered an agreement where AOL would receive a warrant to purchase 5% of InfoSpace’s stock in exchange for helping to send clients to InfoSpace. Plaintiff brought suit against AOL asserting that AOL and InfoSpace were beneficial owners because they agreed to act together for the purpose of acquiring, holding, and disposing of equity securities. The court rejected this argument indicating that at best, AOL and InfoSpace worked together to inflate InfoSpace’s revenues and earnings. However, such collaboration for accounting purposes and not in the context of a stock purchase or sale is not sufficient to form a beneficial ownership group for Section 16(b) purposes.
Securities regulations are often complicated and impact may aspects of business law, beyond those relating to publicly traded companies such as Section 16(b) discussed above. Whether you’re seeking to form a fund to purchase property or pooling investors for venture capital purposes, understanding securities regulations are necessary to protect your fund and investment. For more information relating to securities regulations and fund formation issues please contact Robert W. Blanchard, Esq. or Michael D. Paa, Esq. at 858-551-2440, or via e-mail at bblanchard@bkflaw.com or mpaa@bkflaw.com.
SEPTEMBER 2009
SEPTEMBER 2009
Trusts and Estates
The California Court of Appeal recently ruled in Salter v. Lerner that a petition by beneficiaries seeking information regarding trustee’s conduct as trustee did not violate the no contest provision of the trust. The beneficiaries suspected that the trustee was using trust assets to engage in capital intensive projects, including remodeling a house, paying deposits on a Ferrari and Bentley, and taking expensive vacations. The remainder beneficiaries’ proposed petition sought to compel the trustee to provide information regarding the administration of the trust, specifically how trust funds were being spent. The court said that this petition to enforce a trustee’s duty under Cal. Prob. Code s 16060, which provides that a trustee has a duty to keep the beneficiaries of the trust reasonably informed of the trust and its administration, is not a direct or indirect challenge to the validity of the trust or its terms. Therefore, the beneficiaries’ petition did not violate the no contest provision of the trust.
For more information concerning the drafting or review of trust documents and the enforcement of trustee or beneficiary rights, contact Ashley E. Teague, Esq. at 858-551-2440, or via e-mail at ateague@bkflaw.com.
Banking Update
New amendments to the Truth in Lending Act become effective on October 1, 2009. Specifically, section 226.35 addresses new regulations concerning “higher priced mortgage loans.” Higher priced mortgages are defined as those that are 1.5 percent above the “average prime offer rate” for first lien loans and 3.5 above the “average prime offer rate” for more junior lien loans. The “average prime offer rate” is defined as “an annual percentage rate that is derived from average interest rates, points, and other loan pricing terms currently offered to consumers by a representative sample of creditors for mortgage transactions that have low risk pricing characteristics.” For these higher priced mortgage loans, the following new regulations apply:
- Duty to Verify Ability to Repay - The lender now has an affirmative obligation to verify the repayment ability of the borrower. Specifically, the income and assets of the borrower must be verified by IRS records, payroll receipts, financial institution records or third party documents.
- Prepayment Penalty Restrictions - A prepayment penalty can only be in effect for two years and such penalties are expressly prohibited if the rate on the mortgage can change anytime within 4 years after the consummation. (Ie. variable rate mortgages).
- Escrow Accounts - First lien holders must establish an escrow account for property taxes and premiums for mortgage-related insurance required by the lender (ie. hazard, liability, credit).
Whether you are a financial institution or a private lender, these new regulations may impact your lending practices. For more information on regulatory issues concerning lending and financial institutions, please contact Ed Schlesier, Esq or Michael Paa, Esq at 858-551-2440; or at eschlesier@bkflaw.com or mpaa@bkflaw.com, respectively.
OCTOBER 2009
OCTOBER 2009
Real Estate Law Update
On September 29, 2009, the California Court of Appeals, Second District, ruled a real estate broker was entitled to its commission upon execution of the buy-sell contract, even if escrow did not close. In RC Royal Development and Realty Corporation v. Standard Pacific Corporation, the broker entered into an Agency Agreement with the buyer to find a suitable commercial property in Los Angeles. Under the Agreement, the broker was entitled to a commission “in the event that the property is purchased by Standard Pacific Corporation.” The Agreement went further to indicate that “purchase” shall mean “any and all acquisitions of any direct or indirect beneficial interest in the property.” After signing the buy-sell contract the deal fell apart and escrow never closed.
In California, upon execution of a buy-sell contract, the purchaser obtains equitable title to the property and the seller retains legal title until the sale’s closing. Consequently, the court held that this transfer of equitable title to the buyer qualified as a purchase because the buyer received a “beneficial interest” in the property. Despite the fact the deal did not close, Standard Pacific Corporation purchased the property by obtaining equitable title to the property and thus triggered its obligation to pay the broker’s commission.
Intricate language in various Agency Agreements can be the difference in collecting or paying a commission, even if nothing of value is ever received. For more information about Blanchard, Krasner & French’s Real Estate or Contracts practice contact Michael Paa, Esq. at 858-551-2440 or at mpaa@bkflaw.com.
NOVEMBER 2009
NOVEMBER 2009
Real Estate/Tax Update
In 1986, California voters approved Proposition 60 allowing persons over the age of 55 to transfer the tax basis of their older property to a new purchase of equal or lesser value. In a case of first impression, the Sixth District Court of Appeal determined as of what date the value of the new property would be assessed.
In Wunderlich v. County of Santa Cruz, the homeowners originally purchased two parcels of land, parcel A and parcel B, in 1979. The homeowners built a house on parcel A but kept parcel B vacant. In 1979, parcel B had a base value of $62,477. In 2004, homeowners sold parcel A for $830,000. Homeowners then constructed a new house on parcel B for $668,400. Initially, upon completion of the construction, the county assessed parcel B for tax purposes at $730,877 representing $62,477 in original land value and $668,400 in new construction value. However, upon application for a Proposition 60 transfer, the County assessed the land value as the then current fair market value in 2004 and not the acquisition value in 1979. As such, the County assessed the value of the property at $900,000 representing $231,600 as the fair market value of parcel B at the time construction was completed and $668,400 for the construction costs. Because the newly assessed value of $900,000 was more than 105% of parcel A’s value, the Proposition 60 basis transfer was not approved. Homeowner appealed.
The Court found in favor of the County and rejected the Proposition 60 transfer. In so holding, the Court stated:
“the replacement dwelling-including both land and structure- must be valued as of a single date, either the date that the property was purchased or the date that construction of the structure was complete, whatever is later.”
Structuring a purchase and sale of real property properly may result in favorable tax consequences. For more information please contact Mr. Michael D. Paa, Esq at 858-551-2440 or at mpaa@bkflaw.com.
Real Property/Banking Law Update
The California Court of Appeal recently provided additional guidance for the sometimes convoluted world of secured lending and lien holder priority. The case, Wells Fargo Bank v. Neilsen, involved three liens secured by real property. The first lien holder, American Express (“AMEX”), had a lien for $28,000.00. The second lien holder, Wells Fargo Bank (“WFB”), had a lien for $78,000.00. Finally, the third lien holder, PHH Mortgage Holder (“PHH”), had a lien for $322,000.00. Under traditional foreclosure procedures, absent any subordination agreements, AMEX would be paid first from the foreclosure proceeds. If additional funds remain after AMEX receives its distribution, WFB would be paid, and the process would repeat until all funds from the foreclosure sale are depleted.
In the Nielson case, the parties disrupted the traditional payoff procedure. Pursuant to a subordination agreement, AMEX (1st lien holder) agreed to subordinate its interest to PPH (3rd lien holder) but did not agree to subordinate its interest to WFB (2nd lien holder). This created a confusing scenario where AMEX is senior to WFB, WFB is senior to PHH, but PHH is senior to AMEX. To resolve this dilemma, the Court applied the “circuity of liens doctrine.” Essentially, this doctrine enforces the liens according to the parties’ objective intent. In its opinion, the Court resolved the matter in the following way:
“[t]hus [PHH] by virtue of the subordination agreement, is paid first, but only to the amount of [AMEX’s] claim, to which [WFB] was in any event junior. [WFB] receives what it expected to receive, the fund less [AMEX’s] prior claim. If [AMEX’s] claim is smaller than [PHH’s], [PHH] will collect the balance of its claim, in its own right, only after [WFB] has been paid in full. [AMEX], the subordinator receives noting until [WFB and PHH] have been paid, except to the extent that its claim exceeds the amount of [PHH’s] claim, which under its agreement, is to be first paid.”
Blanchard, Krasner & French has substantial experience with secured lending transactions. For more information please contact Mr. Michael D. Paa, Esq. at 858-551-2440 or mpaa@bkflaw.com.
