All Posts

Sometimes the most important ruling in a case is the one nobody actually wrote down. In Aaronoff v. Martinez-Senftner, a 2006 California appeals court decision, one of the quieter but genuinely useful lessons has nothing to do with the sad facts of the case itself — it's about a courtroom tool called "judicial notice," and what happens when a trial court uses it but never says so out loud. A Quick Refresher: What Is Judicial Notice? Judicial notice is a shortcut courts use fo

Cities and the state of California are constantly wrestling over who gets to write the rules for evictions. Landlords say state law sets the process, and cities can't slow it down. Cities say they have real power to protect tenants. In April 2026, a California appeals court had to referee exactly this fight — and the outcome hinged on a distinction that sounds technical but actually matters a lot: the difference between a "substantive" rule and a "procedural" one. This is the

In 2002, California lawmakers did something unusual: they opened a one-year window allowing certain old childhood sexual abuse claims — cases that had already expired under the normal filing deadlines — to be filed again. But that window wasn't open to everyone, for every kind of claim. A 2006 California appeals court decision, Aaronoff v. Martinez-Senftner, drew a sharp line around exactly who could walk through it. The Background A woman (referred to in court records simply

Cities and the state of California are constantly wrestling over who gets to write the rules for evictions. Landlords say state law sets the process, and cities can't slow it down. Cities say they have real power to protect tenants. In April 2026, a California appeals court had to referee exactly this fight — and the outcome hinged on a distinction that sounds technical but actually matters a lot: the difference between a "substantive" rule and a "procedural" one. This is the

Sometimes the biggest legal battles come down to the smallest details — like whether a piece of paper was filed six days too soon. That's the entire story of Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Center, a 2018 California Supreme Court decision that turned an eviction case into a lesson about reading statutes exactly as written. The Setup A company called Westlake Village Property owned a piece of commercial real estate in Thousand Oaks and leased it to Westlake Health Care

Here's a strange but important legal puzzle: a tenant gets evicted because a court ruled against her. She appeals — and wins. The eviction judgment gets thrown out. But by then, she's already been kicked out, her landlord has already re-rented the space to someone else, and nothing in the appeal actually gives her the store back or any money for what she lost. Does she have any way to recover those losses? That's exactly the situation in Munoz v. MacMillan, a California appea

Eviction cases are built for speed. If a tenant hasn't paid rent, a landlord shouldn't have to wait months just to get their property back — that's the whole point of "unlawful detainer" court, California's fast-track eviction process. But what happens when the "tenant" claims he's not really a tenant at all — that he's the true owner, and the person suing him is just holding the property on his behalf? Can a court settle a complicated ownership dispute in the same rushed, no

Imagine your partner of ten years is in the hospital, about to have risky surgery. He wants to sign his will right then and there to make sure you're taken care of. But his sister calls and tells you to hold off — she's got a better plan, a living trust, and her attorney friends are already on it. So you wait. He goes into surgery. He never wakes up the same. He dies without ever signing anything. And his sister inherits everything. That's not a movie plot — it's the real sto

Here's a question that sounds almost too simple to matter: if someone gets free rent and free meals in exchange for helping out around the house, are they getting "paid"? In most parts of life, most people would say obviously yes. But in one California courtroom, a judge said no — and that single word made the difference between a caregiver inheriting an entire estate or losing it all. That's the story of Robinson v. Gutierrez, decided by a California appeals court in Decembe

Some legal cases read like a mystery novel. Butler v. LeBouef, decided by a California appeals court in 2016, is one of them — complete with a suspicious burglary, a forensic handwriting expert, and a pattern of behavior stretching back 25 years. At the center of it all was an attorney who, according to the trial court, used his law license to take advantage of a vulnerable, elderly man and walk away with a $5 million estate. Meet John Patton John Patton was a well-known inte

Picture this: your father dies, and you find out his caregiver rewrote his trust so that she — not you — gets almost everything, including the house. You sue to undo it. But by the time your case gets moving, the caregiver has already used trust money to buy a different property. Can you put a legal hold on that new property while the case plays out? That was the real question behind Newell v. Superior Court, a California appeals court decision from December 2024. It's a case

Imagine an elderly man signs over his house to the woman who cooks his meals and helps him with errands. He says he did it because "she deserves it" and "I like her." Is that a valid gift? Or is it the kind of deal California law says can never be trusted? That question sat at the heart of Jenkins v. Teegarden, a 2014 case decided by a California appeals court. The case gives a clear lesson about a rule meant to protect older adults from losing their homes and savings to the

Imagine you start an argument with someone. Every time they prove you are wrong, instead of backing down, you change your story slightly and force them to prove you wrong all over again. When the argument is finally over, can you turn around and complain: "Hey, why did you spend so much time arguing with me?" According to a California appeals court in Nasey v. Fell Holdings LLC (2026), the answer is a firm no. What Happened in the Case? Laurence Nasey ran businesses out of tw

Imagine you own a small business in San Diego, and a big company based in San Francisco breaks a contract with you. Do you have to pack your bags, hire a lawyer 500 miles away, and sue them in San Francisco? Or can you make them come to your hometown court? In the legal world, deciding which county's court gets to hear a lawsuit is called venue. In California, regular people usually have to be sued where they live. But corporations play by different rules. Under California la

Judgment lien priority fights often come down to a single question: which creditor recorded first? But "first" isn't always as simple as comparing abstract-of-judgment dates. Mira Overseas Consulting Ltd. v. Muse Family Enterprises, Ltd. (2015) 237 Cal. App. 4th 378 is a useful case for any litigator racing another creditor to a debtor's real property — it confirms that a creditor pursuing a fraudulent transfer claim can jump the line entirely, so long as a lis pendens was re

Most California litigators know the basic rule: if your defendant dies mid-case, or if the person who wronged your client is already dead when you file, you generally have to present a creditor's claim in the decedent's probate estate before you can pursue any recovery. Miss the claim window and the case is usually dead too. There is a narrow but useful exception, and it lives in Probate Code Part 13, Chapter 1 (§§ 550–555). If the decedent was covered by liability insurance,

You'd think proving someone died would be easy — just show a death certificate. Usually it is. But California law has a whole set of rules for when proving death matters legally, especially for property. These rules are in Probate Code Part 4, and they cover three jobs: proving death in court, putting that proof on property records, and telling certain government agencies. Here's the plain-language rundown. Proving Death in Court A common example: two people co-own a house as

Most people picture inheritance as something you write down in a will. But what happens if someone dies without one? Does the government just keep everything? Not quite. California has a detailed rulebook for exactly this situation, found in Probate Code Part 2, called "Intestate Succession." Here's how it actually works, explained in plain language. First, What Does "Intestate" Even Mean? "Intestate" just means someone died without a valid will covering their property. It do

If someone dies without a will, California law has to figure out who inherits — and that often comes down to who counts as the closest relative. But "closest relative" isn't just a feeling. California actually has a math formula for it, written into Probate Code section 13. Here's how it works, explained simply. Why Does the Law Even Need to Measure This? When a person dies without a will (or when other relatives need to be identified for a legal case), the law often has to r

Losing a parent or loved one is hard enough. Then comes the paperwork. If that person owned a house, their family often had to go through "probate" — a long, expensive court process — just to put the house in someone else's name. Starting April 1, 2025, California made that easier for many families. Here's what changed, explained in plain English. First, What Is Probate? When someone dies owning property, that property usually can't just be handed over to their kids or other