Legal Blog

Government Witness Points to Seeno Executives in Federal Real Estate Fraud Proceedings

A former vice president of sales for a leading San Francisco real estate company has provided numerous details about a real estate mortgage fraud scheme allegedly perpetrated by the company to pump up sales, and which has been the focus of a seven-year investigation by the FBI. The details of the scheme were included in a sentencing memorandum for the salesperson, Ayman Shahid, who is facing years in prison for his role in the fraud, but who provided the FBI with information relating to the scheme in hopes of a reduced sentence. Shahid has alleged that Discovery Homes, a company owned by the powerful Seeno real estate family, engaged in a massive scheme to provide illicit payments to new homeowners to help them purchase homes at inflated costs and fraudulently obtain credit lines.

Shahid Said Scheme Was Directed by Top Executives

The FBI’s investigation of the Seeno real estate companies began in 2010 when it raided the Seeno headquarters in Concord, California to find evidence of real estate mortgage fraud. Shahid was arrested in 2014 on 18 counts of bank fraud, most of which were dropped after spending two years helping federal investigators build their case against the Seeno companies.

Shahid claims that the scheme to illegally provide payments to homeowners to flout credit requirements and inflate home prices was directed by members of the Seeno family as well as the company’s attorneys. Discovery Homes did plead guilty to fraud as a corporate entity, and nine other Seeno associates pled guilty to criminal charges as well, but federal investigators appear to have fallen short in collecting sufficient evidence to charge top Seeno executives.

In a written statement discussing the inability to bring charges against top executives, federal prosecutor John Hemann wrote, “Although logic and the overall circumstances suggest that others at least knew of Shahid’s conduct and the overall scheme, ultimately the proof was lacking and the investigation was not able to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Work With an Experienced Los Angeles Real Estate Attorney

Attorney Laine T. Wagenseller of the Wagenseller Law Firm has published numerous articles on real estate law and works with individuals and businesses across Southern California in resolving real estate matters, including allegations of real estate fraud. Contact the Wagenseller Law Firm today to schedule a consultation.

Court Upholds $23 Million Award Against Contractor in CA Real Estate Fraud Case

When Delores McGinty created a special needs trust in 2006 on behalf of her daughter Kathleen,  who suffers from autism, which included ownership of a 1,477 square foot home in Santa Monica, she no doubt wanted to provide for her daughter after her own death, which came to pass in 2009. Unfortunately, a contractor who had offered to make needed repairs on the property took advantage of Kathleen and her brother Tim, who was appointed as trustee, and who lived with Kathleen in the home with only a $865 monthly disability payment for income. After the contractor took ownership of the home through fraudulent actions, a second trustee took action against the contractor resulting in a $23 million award – including $21 million in punitive damages – which was recently upheld by California’s Second Appellate District.

Bouzaglou’s Fraudulent Actions

According to the appellate court’s decision, the detached garage at the McGinty family’s home was cited by the City of Santa Monica for being noncompliant with city residency requirements. Tim, who suffered from severe depression and bipolar syndrome, reached an agreement with Noam Bouzaglou, a salesman at Triangle Construction, for $3,500 to make repairs to the garage and plumbing repairs. The contract was later increased to $16,480.

Bouzaglou later reached an agreement with Tim by which his own construction company, Ness Construction, would build a 650 square foot guest house for $397,000 on the property. Bouzaglou assisted Tim in obtaining a $400,000 loan to cover the cost of the construction and had the funds transferred to his own agent.

Bouzaglou continued to persuade Tim to enter into further agreements for work even after Tim had attempted to commit suicide and was placed in a psychiatric hospital. Bouzaglou eventually persuaded Tim to transfer ownership of the Santa Monica property to him shortly after Tim was released from the psychiatric hospital and just prior to Tim’s death from a stroke. As part of this scheme, Bouzaglou forced Kathleen to move out of the house.

The Appellate Court Upholds the $23 Million Award

At trial, a jury found Bouzaglou and his construction company liable for fraud and ordered both parties to pay $1.33 million in compensatory damages and over $21 million in punitive damages to Kathleen’s trust.

The defendants appealed on procedural grounds as well as on the grounds that the amount of punitive damages was overly high. The court disagreed, finding that the compensatory damages were justified for a number of reasons, including that, “evidence showed that Kathleen suffered physical, mental, and emotional distress when Bouzaglou moved her from the home where she had lived her entire life to an apartment in Encino.” The court further found that the punitive damages were justified given the fact that “the defendants’ actions were highly culpable” and there was a reasonable relationship between those actions and the award.

Work With an Experienced Los Angeles Real Estate Attorney

Attorney Laine T. Wagenseller of the Wagenseller Law Firm has published numerous articles on real estate law and works with individuals and businesses across Southern California in resolving real estate matters, including allegations of real estate fraud. Contact the Wagenseller Law Firm today to schedule a consultation.

Can a CA Commercial Landlord Prevent a Tenant From Assigning a Lease?

In general, a party setting up shop for a business usually intends to stay there for longer than a few months, and commercial leases often extend much longer than a typical 1-year residential lease. But, of course, small businesses and startups go out of business all the time (as do their larger counterparts), and once there is no more business to be run, there is no need for continuing the lease. Short of business termination, a business might have any number of reasons for trying to get out of the obligations of a lease (upsizing, downsizing, location change, etc.) and one of the most common tactics a tenant will pursue is trying to get another party to assume the obligations of the lease by assigning the lease to that third party. Which will of course, mean that the commercial landlord is dealing with a whole new party; instead of a copy shop or accountant’s firm, a daycare facility or pet store might move in which radically changes the situation. Which leads to the question of whether a commercial landlord in California can prevent a tenant from assigning the lease.

Does the Lease Have a Prohibition Clause?

Many leases contain prohibitions on assignment of a lease, but not all prohibitions on assignments are written to say exactly the same thing. For example, some assignment prohibition clauses will absolutely prohibit assignments while others might put conditions on assigning such as requiring approval by the landlord.

While California courts are more favorable to tenants in the context of residential leases, landlords are given more power in the context of commercial leases. Under California CIV § 1995.210, a lease may include a restriction on the transfer of the lease. Furthermore, under CIV § 1995.230, such a prohibition may “absolutely prohibit transfer.” That said, under CIV § 1995.220, “An ambiguity in a restriction on transfer of a tenant’s interest in a lease shall be construed in favor of transferability.”

Putting this all together, if the lease makes a clear statement that assignment is prohibited, then a court will uphold that prohibition, but if a restriction on transferability is somewhat ambiguous, the court may favor the tenant in allowing the assignment.

What if the Lease Gives the Landlord Discretion to Approve the Assignment?

Again, many leases contain assignment provisions which do allow for assignment but only when the landlord approves the assignment. If no standard is provided in the clause for when the landlord will and will not consent to an assignment, then, under CIV § 1995.260, such consent may not be “unreasonably withheld” by the landlord. Whether the landlord is unreasonably withholding consent to a proposed assignment is a question of fact that the parties may have to litigate, and the burden will be on the tenant to prove that the landlord acted unreasonably in withholding consent.

In addition, the parties can include a term in the commercial lease which restricts assignment unless certain conditions are met, such as providing a certain amount of notice before an assignment is allowed.

When the Lease Contains No Prohibition on Assignments

Although most boilerplate leases will contain an assignment clause, the parties may have negotiated so as not to include such a clause or simply created a lease on their own without an assignment clause. In such cases, the tenant will generally have the right to assign its obligations under the lease.

After an assignment, however, the original tenant can remain liable to the landlord for rent if the new tenant fails to follow through on its rent obligations (although the original tenant can pursue legal action to recover the rents paid), unless the landlord releases that original tenant from its obligations under the lease through a novation.

Work With an Experienced Los Angeles Real Estate Attorney

Attorney Laine T. Wagenseller of the Wagenseller Law Firm has published numerous articles on real estate law and works with individuals and businesses across Southern California in resolving real estate matters, including lease matters that result in litigation. Contact the Wagenseller Law Firm today to schedule a consultation.

Sears CEO Settles Shareholder Lawsuit With $40 Million Payment Pledge

Sears has been a mainstay of the US retail economy since the 19th century, and while it is no longer the dominant force it was once was, it is still the twelfth largest retailer in the company. But in a move to maintain the company’s financial strength, the company sold 235 of its stores to a real-estate investment trust company called Seritage Growth Companies in 2015. These types of reorganizations and restructuring are of course by no means uncommon in this rapidly changing company, but Sears shareholders balked at the fact that Seritage was created by Sears CEO Eddie Lampert, meaning he was on both sides of the transaction. The shareholders brought suit against Seritage and Lampert, and the shareholder suit was settled earlier this month with an agreement that Lampert and Seritage would pay $40 million back to Sears on account of its shareholders.

The Questioned Deal Between Sears and Seritage

Seritage paid $2.6 billion to purchase the 235 Sears locations in 2015, and Sears agreed to pay rent to Seritage for continued use of the stores. The Sears shareholders who filed the lawsuit against the directors of Sears who approved the deal, among others, alleged that this deal was not in the interest of the shareholders but rather served to benefit Seritage. The complaint noted that Sears has neared bankruptcy in the intervening time since the deal was made while Seritage has profited off the deal.

The shareholders alleged that Lampert facilitated the deal and was the “driving force” behind it to benefit himself at the expense of the Sears shareholders by stripping the company of “its valuable core assets” in the form of the company’s real estate holdings in the store. The shareholders further alleged that other Sears directors ignored the interests of shareholders and were “acting at the behest” of Lampert in approving the deal.

The $40 million to be paid in the deal will come from the defendants and their insurers and the four named shareholders in the action will receive $10,000 apiece.

Experienced Representation in Your Shareholder Litigation Matter

The business litigation attorneys at Wagenseller Law Firm in downtown Los Angeles have extensive experience in representing businesses, corporations, directors, officers, and shareholders in shareholder disputes. We have worked with businesses and individuals throughout Southern California across a wide range of industries, including financial service entities, manufacturers, importers, retail stores, restaurants, entertainment entities, law firms, and more. Contact us today to discuss your breach of fiduciary duty matter.

OC Woman Pleads Guilty to Federal Real Estate Fraud Charges

A 2013 press release from “Investors Workshops, a top-rated real estate investment networking group located in Orange County, California” announced that the entity was celebrating its ten-year anniversary by making its “real estate investing workshops available to the general public” for the first time, and that, not only that, it would be offering “two years” of educational real estate materials for free. If that sounds too good to be true, it was. The free seminars offered by the founders of Investors Workshops – Angel Bronsgeest and Shawn Watkins –  were used to solicit victims enter into a real estate investment ponzi scheme orchestrated by the two individuals which resulted in millions in losses from investors across Orange County. In late January, Bronsgeest pled guilty to a federal wire fraud charge in connection with the scheme and Watkins, who surrendered to the FBI last fall, faces nine counts of wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering charges.

How the Real Estate Fraud Scheme Worked

To carry out their scheme, Bronsgeest and Watkins formed an entity called The Equity Growth Group (TEEG). At their Investors Workshops seminars held at various hotels across Orange County, the two individuals told guests that they could invest their funds with TEEG which they claimed owned hundreds of rent-generating properties and which would continue to acquire properties.

 

Potential investors were told they would receive payments on their investments from rent income, but in actuality TEEG was not amassing new properties and was operating at a negative cash flow. While some existing investors did receive payments on their investments, these payments were funded by money flowing into TEEG from additional investors, thus making TEEG a class ponzi scheme. All in all, investors lost $3.5 million in the scheme.

Civil Remedies for Real Estate Fraud

Bronsgeest faces 20 years in federal prison while Watkins faces up to 180 years in federal prison. In addition to criminal penalties, perpetrators of real estate fraud can be required to pay civil damages to the victims of their fraud. Although in some cases of wide-ranging criminal fraud, the perpetrators are not necessarily in a position to financially reimburse their victims, there are often third parties who may have facilitated the fraud and who could be liable to victims. Talk to a real estate fraud attorney about potential civil claims you might have in connection with real estate fraud.

Work With an Experienced Los Angeles Real Estate Fraud Litigator

Whether you are considering legal action against a seller, buyer, broker, or agent, it is important to work with an experienced real estate litigation attorney who can evaluate your circumstances and bring your best case for relief. The Los Angeles real estate fraud attorneys at the Wagenseller Law Firm have the experience to evaluate your case and work to obtain the outcome you deserve. Contact the Wagenseller Firm today to schedule a consultation.

Can a CA Commercial Tenant Stop Paying Rent Via Constructive Eviction?

If you have spent anytime in the world of landlord-tenant law and/or rental property management, you are probably no doubt familiar with the concept of “constructive eviction.” This legal principle dates back hundreds of years in the common law and essentially states that a tenant can be relieved of the obligation to pay rent on a lease if a landlord’s acts or omissions in managing the property make the property unfit for habitation, so long as the tenant gives proper notice and vacates the property. Constructive eviction can be a legal nightmare for landlords while remaining a powerful legal tool for tenants, but the use of constructive eviction in the commercial real estate context in California presents options and challenges for landlords and tenants like.

Constructive Eviction Generally in CA

Under California Civil Code Section 1927, a tenant has the following right: “An agreement to let upon hire binds the letter to secure to the hirer the quiet possession of the thing hired during the term of the hiring, against all persons lawfully claiming the same.”

While this may sound vague or even archaic, California courts have ruled that this means all landlords (or “letters”) owe their tenants an implied duty “that a tenant shall have quiet enjoyment and possession of the premises during the continuation of the term” of lease. Courts have further explained that this means that, if an issue arises that impairs the ability of the tenant to enjoy the property – such as noxious fumes, infestation, major property defects, and so on – and the landlord failures to remedy the issue, the tenant can consider himself “constructively evicted” and then stop paying rent due on the lease, but only after the tenant has moved out.

Contracting Out of a Constructive Eviction Option for Commercial Tenants

With regard to commercial leases, however, the courts have honored the right of commercial landlords to essentially contract with a commercial tenant via the lease to opt out of allowing the option of pursuing a constructive option. Although the courts have said that it is against public policy for landlords to create residential leases which include a clause requiring a residential tenant to waive his right to pursue a constructive eviction, this public policy does not apply to commercial tenants.

Thus, commercial landlords may choose to include a clause in a commercial lease which requires the tenant to waive this right (e.g. “In no event shall Tenant have the right to terminate this Lease as a result of Landlord’s default and Tenant’s remedies shall be limited to damages and/or an injunction.“) and such a clause will be upheld by the court. Although a commercial tenant may be able to pursue other legal remedies such as damages, the courts will not permit a tenant who agrees to this clause to pursue the constructive eviction defense to paying rent on the lease.

Work With an Experienced Los Angeles Real Estate Attorney

Attorney Laine T. Wagenseller of the Wagenseller Law Firm has published numerous articles on real estate law and works with individuals and businesses across Southern California in resolving real estate matters, including lease matters that result in litigation. Contact the Wagenseller Law Firm today to schedule a consultation.

Dear Real Estate Attorney, It Is Not About You

An Attorney Who Talks About Himself?

A few years ago I needed to hire an attorney (not a real estate attorney!).  My brother and I interviewed a few.  One attorney ushered us into his office and regaled us with stories about how he started his firm long ago.  He talked about different staff he had hired and how the practice had evolved over the years.

I am not sure if he noticed how much I started fidgeting.  Truth be told I had no interest in how he had built his practice.  I didn’t care about his stories about his staff.  I didn’t even care about his battle stories about other cases he had handled.

I couldn’t wait to start talking about me and my issue.  I wanted to know how he was going to solve my problems.

How Are You Going To Solve My Problems?

They say that when a prospect comes in for a consultation or even visits your website, he or she doesn’t want to know your autobiography or the history of your law firm in the community.  The potential client first and foremost wants to feel hopeful–can you resolve his or her problem?  He or she also wants to feel safe–is the potential client safe entrusting his legal matter to you as the attorney?

At Wagenseller Law Firm we focus on helping our clients with their real estate problems.  We want to hear your story and then we want to work with you on figuring out a good solution.

We Do One Thing And One Thing Only–Real Estate Litigation

We want you to feel safe entrusting your problem to us.  We do this in part by focus and specialization.  We do one thing and one thing only–real estate lawsuits.  Because we specialize in this one area we have the experience necessary to help you.  When you browse our website you will notice stories about prior cases.  This will help you figure out whether our experience is similar to the issue you are facing.  It will give you comfort in knowing how lawsuits like yours are handled and the different ways that they are resolved.

However, there is no substitute for a one-on-one conversation about your issue.  Feel free to call us to discuss your issue and we can give you feedback.  We are always willing to talk to your friends and colleagues about their legal issues.  We may not be the right law firm to handle the dispute.  We will tell you that and most likely give you a referral to someone who is a better fit.  If we are a good fit we will tell you upfront how we will handle your lawsuit or issue.

Real estate litigation is a complex field with a lot of statutes, case law and regulations.  Not all attorneys focus on only real estate.  Not all lawyers even listen all that well to what your issue is.  Our goal is to listen to what you want to accomplish and then apply our expertise to your case so that you feel both hopeful and safe with our representation.  How can we help you?

Attorney Laine T. Wagenseller specializes in real estate lawsuits in Los Angeles.  He is the founder of Wagenseller Law Firm in downtown Los Angeles and he handles lawsuits that deal with properties and partnerships.

Some of the ideas in this post were well expressed in an email from Richard Jacobs of Speakeasy Marketing (attorney marketing specialists) so I want to make sure that he gets credit for them.

 

Do I Need a Signed Contract to Bring a Breach of Contract Case?

In both your business and personal affairs, you are no doubt asked to sign a lot of agreements, especially when dealing with large, faceless entities. It can seem like every time you log into your Itunes account or open your mailbox to find correspondence from your bank or credit card company, there is a new, densely written, small-type contract that you have to assent to in order to continue receiving services. But when business is conducted more personally – such as when you work on a potential business venture with a colleague or agree to provide a service as an independent contractor – oftentimes, no written contract is created and instead agreements are sealed with a handshake or just an oral assent to work together. But when one party does not hold up their end of the bargain or decides he or she does not want to move forward, does that handshake mean an enforceable contract has been made? More to the point, can one party bring a breach of contract case in court when there is no written, signed contract?

Some, But Not All, Contracts Require a Signed, Written Contract

The short answer is that, no, most contracts do not have to be in writing to be considered valid and enforceable contracts. That said, a written contract can be tremendously helpful (or damaging, depending on whether you are trying to uphold the obligations of the contract or avoid them) in a breach of contract action. So long as two people both agree to the terms of the contract orally or through other non-written manifestation, and there is valid “consideration” (mutual obligations on both sides, as opposed to a merely gratuitous promise by one party to the other, e.g. “I will give you my car next year”), most oral contracts are enforceable.

Except when they are not. Every state has some version of the “Statute of Frauds” which is a list of contracts that must be in a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement of the contract is sought (in other words, signed by the party who is trying to get out of the contract) in order to be enforceable. In California, the Statute of Frauds includes contracts for:

  • Services that cannot be performed within one year of the making of the contract
  • A promise to guarantee the debt of another
  • A land sale
  • A lease lasting longer than a year
  • An agent to act one’s behalf in purchasing real estate or leasing for longer than a year
  • Certain agreements to pay existing mortgages on property
  • Certain loan agreements exceeding $100k

Why a Written Agreement is Important for Those Bringing Breach of Contract Actions

While a written, signed contract is not required to bring a breach of contract action against another, it can be tremendously helpful in actually being successful in winning the action. When there is a written contract, a court can clearly see what it was that was agreed to, and the parties can simply provide evidence regarding whether the terms of the contract were met or not. And in many cases, going to court is not necessary as the result that would happen in court is clear based on the terms of the contract and thus the parties can settle outside of court.

Without a written contract, however, then it can come down to your word versus the other party’s word over what the terms of the oral agreement were, or indeed whether there was ever an agreement at all. This can be difficult to prove in court, although the court can look at all available, admissible evidence in making this determination. Ultimately, the lack of a written contract brings uncertainty in the enforceability of the contract, which is exactly what some parties want and is the reason why they often do not want to create written agreements.

If you are considering entering into an agreement where there will be no written contract, it is often best to consult a business litigation attorney to determine whether doing so will serve your interests in the long run.

Talk to a Los Angeles Real Estate Attorney

If you have any questions on lease formation or interpretation, an experienced Los Angeles real estate attorney can help. Attorney Laine T. Wagenseller of Wagenseller Law Firm has published numerous articles on real estate law and works with individuals and businesses across Southern California in resolving real estate matters. Contact Wagenseller Law Firm today to schedule a consultation in order to discuss your real estate law questions.

Should You Include an Attorney’s Fees Clause in a Lease?

In leases between a landlord and a tenant, it is usually the landlord that has the power of drafting the lease. Although both parties must obviously agree to the terms before signing, it is obviously easier in many cases for the party drafting the contract to insert a term at the outset than it is for the other party to attempt to add a clause later. Landlords creating leases may be tempted to include an attorney’s fees clause in a lease, which gives them the right to demand attorney fees from the tenant in any action arising from the lease. Having someone else pay your attorney fees sounds great in principle, but California law imposes a number of conditions on such clauses which can result in unintended negative consequences for the party inserting the clause. Here are a couple things to keep in mind before inserting an attorney’s fees clause in a lease.

The Clause Can Be Used Against You, Regardless of How it Is Drafted

Under California law, if an attorney’s fees clause is inserted in a contract, then a judge will award attorney’s fees to whoever the prevailing party is, regardless of whether the contract specifies only one party should receive fees. Thus, if you insert an attorney’s fees clause specifying only you should receive fees, be prepared to pay the other party’s fees as well if you lose.

The Court Will Determine What Reasonable Fees Are

This may go without saying, but you should never run up a legal bill under the presumption that the other party will be the one who has to pay the exact amount specified. The court will determine what the reasonable fees should have been, not you.

The Court Determines Who “Prevails”

Most attorney’s fees clauses are written to award fees to the “prevailing” party. But if you reach a settlement that you think is favorable before a verdict is rendered, does that mean you “prevail” and should be awarded fees? Maybe, maybe not. You do not have to proceed to a final judgment for a court to award you attorney’s fees, but it is within the court’s discretion to determine which party prevails for purposes of fees, and it may determine that neither party prevailed.

Attorney’s Fees May Be Deducted from Non-contractual Damages

If you bring multiple claims against a tenant which include claims not made pursuant to the lease, and you prevail on all, then the court may decide to reduce the non-contractual damages you are owed by the amount of attorney’s fees you are awarded.

Talk to a Los Angeles Real Estate Attorney

If you have any questions on lease formation or interpretation, an experienced Los Angeles real estate attorney can help. Attorney Laine T. Wagenseller of Wagenseller Law Firm has published numerous articles on real estate law and works with individuals and businesses across Southern California in resolving real estate matters. Contact Wagenseller Law Firm today to schedule a consultation in order to discuss your real estate law questions.

When Siblings Fight Over Jointly Owned Property

One of the most common types of property disputes over the course of US history is when brothers and sisters own property jointly but have disagreements over any number of issues regarding the property. For example, a brother might want to sell the family home they grew up in to obtain cash proceeds while a sister intends on raising her own family there. Or one sibling wants to build condominiums on a family plot of land while the other wants to keep the family drug store that has been there for decades. And while these are major questions regarding the ownership rights of property, many smaller but still vitally important disputes can arise. Usually, brothers and sisters find themselves as joint owners of property somewhat involuntarily through a family devise or inheritance. When this happens, the siblings may find themselves in a joint property dispute requiring the guidance of a real estate attorney.

What Joint Ownership Means in California

Whether siblings have a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common ownership structure, California law states that all owners have the right to fully occupy and use the property. They also have a right to share in profits from the property. Thus, if a brother and a sister own a building and land bequeathed to them as joint tenants or tenants in common, they both have the right to fully use and occupy every part of the building and the land and to do with it as they please.

 

Of course, when their intended uses clash or when issues arise over money either being put into the property or coming out of the property occur, disputes can occur relating to:

  • Selling the property to a willing buyer
  • Making improvements and changes to property
  • Who should pay for improvements, changes, repairs, etc.
  • Who should receive rents and other profits (e.g. oil extraction, mineral rights, etc.)

Resolving a Joint Property Dispute Among Siblings

In a perfect world, siblings can reach an agreement regarding how they should deal with issues relating to the property. They can come up with a co-ownership agreement in which they agree to issues such as who has access to what portion of the property, who should pay for improvements, how rent profits should be split, and so on.

But when such an agreement is not possible on their own, working with a real estate attorney can help in reaching a settlement between the siblings which might involve reaching a co-ownership agreement, having one sibling buy the other sibling out, selling the property and splitting the profits, among other options. When a settlement is not possible, then the siblings may need to go to court to have a judge resolve the dispute by ordering a partition of the land. Again, an experienced real estate attorney can guide you in your best, most economical means of resolving a joint property dispute with a sibling.

Work With an Experienced Los Angeles Joint Property Dispute Attorney

Attorney Laine T. Wagenseller of Wagenseller Law Firm has published numerous articles on real estate law and works with individuals and businesses across Southern California in resolving real estate matters, including joint property disputes. Contact Wagenseller Law Firm today to schedule a consultation in order to evaluate your dispute and begin working towards a positive resolution.