Please note: The material in these articles, provided by Chauvel & Glatt, is designed to provide informative and current information as of the date of the posts. The articles should not be considered, nor are they intended to constitute, legal advice. For information on your particular circumstances, please contact Chauvel & Glatt at 650-573-9500.
Two of our attorneys recently negotiated the resolution of a difficult dispute among four owners of a limited liability company stemming from differences in opinion about how to run the business. This led one of the owners to shut the other three out of the company operations. When the three owners came to our firm, it became apparent that no operating agreement had been signed by the owners and there were other corporate irregularities.
A client came to us after a fire sprinkler inside her condo caused significant water damage to her neighbors’ condos and her home. Her HOA attempted to levy a special assessment against her to recover repair costs not covered by the HOA’s insurance. The HOA also did not repair portions of her unit which were covered under the HOA’s insurance policy. Instead, the HOA pressured her to pay out-of-pocket expenses to the HOA’s contractor whose rates were significantly higher than other estimates. The HOA ignored her repeated requests for more information as she attempted to resolve the matter. Meanwhile, she lived in her water-damaged condo as the dispute continued for several months.
A client lost everything he owned after his apartment caught on fire. While attempting to get back on his feet, his landlord’s insurance company began to threaten him with a lawsuit if he did not pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in repair costs. The insurance company hired a debt collection agency which called him relentlessly demanding payment. The insurance company and the debt collection agency openly acknowledged these payments would financially ruin our client.
When a client became wary of his realtor, he turned to Chauvel & Glatt to determine his legal rights as a home-seller.
The client was closing on a home in Hillsborough. The purchase contract provided that the buyer would receive inadequately identified furnishings – and there was considerable confusion in the contract as to the rights of the parties.
A client was nearly left homeless when the real estate she had purchased was placed in limbo.
The seller was not able to close and move into his new home due to financing issues, so he wouldn’t close the sale with the client and leave the premises. Our buyer client proposed that the sale close and the seller enter a “rent-back” agreement, but the seller refused and would not close the sale of his home as scheduled.