April 24 2008 Jim W Hildreth Real Estate Mediation
Disputes with Tenants, turn into felony arrest of landlords.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A landlord couple accused of cutting the supports under a renter's San Francisco apartment are facing felony charges in an alleged campaign to terrorize tenants into leaving.
Prosecutors say software engineer Kip Macy, 33, and real estate agent Nicole Macy, 32, told workers to cut the beams supporting the tenant's floor after he successfully fought eviction in court.
The couple also allegedly shut off his electricity, cut his phone line and had workers saw a hole in his living room floor from below.
Authorities arrested the pair Tuesday and charged them with felony stalking, burglary and conspiracy and other counts.
Prosecutors say the landlords broke into another apartment in the six-unit building and poured ammonia on a tenant's clothes, bedding and home electronics.
Jim W Hildreth- Real Estate Mediator
www.RealEstateMediation.org
Thursday, April 24, 2008
April 24th 2008
Jim W Hildreth Real Estate Mediation
Mediation is a voluntary process which requires the parties to focus on resolving their current dispute and preserving their future relationships. The parties must be willing to focus on their present and future needs, and not dwell on who may have been right or wrong. The parties must be open to new options and willing to compromise.
Jim W Hildreth-Mediator
www.RealEstateMediation.org
Mediating the Commercial Lease Dispute
Mediating the Commercial Lease Dispute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Jerry Slusky
This article has been modified from its original publishing. The original article first appeared in the ACREL Papers Fall 2007 publication.
April 2008
Mediation has been successful in commercial real estate disputes for several reasons. Due to the nature of the real estate market, land or rental space may not have the same value at the end of litigation as it did when the dispute arose. The value of the parties’ interest may be damaged by injunctions, restraining orders or other restrictions imposed by the courts. Depending on the characteristics of the deal, the nature of the real estate and the uses of the property, a variety of disputes can arise from a commercial property lease transaction.
The common sources of commercial property lease disputes are those issues often contested in commercial real estate transactions and the differing interpretations of lease provisions by the landlord or tenant. These generally include:
rent calculations or review,
annual allocation of property tax and common area expenses,
enforcement of operating covenants,
assignment and subletting restrictions,
landlord consent (usually required not to be withheld unreasonably in relation to assignment or subleasing or quality of proposed tenant alterations),
improvements, changes or alterations to the premises,
expansion or reduction of leased premises,
relocation rights,
options to purchase or rights of first refusal and first opportunity,
adequacy of maintenance,
responsibility for repairs,
exclusive use rights or prohibited uses, and
permissible commercial activities or use restrictions (such a claim may involve a third party who is also a tenant).[1]
Outside of the lease disputes noted above, problems can emerge in other areas, including eviction rights and procedures, identifying the premises, establishing commencement and expiration dates and clarifying conditions surrounding the delivery of commercial space.[2]
Benefits of Mediation in the Commercial Lease Dispute
Mediation advances interests rather than decides rights, and requires willingness to compromise by the parties. A mediator’s assistance in a particular dispute may be the catalyst to bring the parties to reconsider the lease in light of their experience with it. In addition, resolving lease disputes efficiently is often vital to third parties including lenders, appraisers, REITs, and other investors.[3]
1. Less Time and Expense than Litigation
Judge Learned Hand said many years ago, “As a litigant, I should dread a lawsuit above all else, other than sickness and death.”[4] Mediation has the potential to save the parties time and money, especially considering commercial real estate mediations can often be completed in a single day at a fraction of the cost of litigation.
The actual cost of mediation depends on the mediator selected. In a typical real estate mediation, a commercial mediator charges from $150 to $500 per hour, similar to the hourly rates charged by attorneys. A real estate mediation usually lasts three to four hours, but, depending on the complexity of the issues, may well take up to a full day (six or eight hours). Generally, the cost for the mediation and the manner in which cost is apportioned among the parties is set out in the Mediation Agreement. Although mediation is not inexpensive, when litigation can cost each party $25,000 to $75,000 or even more, mediation is well worth considering.[5]
2. Creative Solutions of Complex Issues
Commercial property transactions often involve complex documents with detailed covenants, restrictions, and controls specific to the real estate industry. While judges are capable generalists who can learn about a case in a short period of time, there are significant advantages to having disputes resolved by a neutral mediator with specific knowledge of the issues involved and experience negotiating commercial real estate transactions. In evaluating disputes regarding a commercial property lease, “the mediator should consider what is important to a commercial tenant, property owner, property manager, or landlord concerning the cost of acquiring or leasing the space and can identify issues regarding a proposed use or occupancy.”[6]
Using a mediator who is also an experienced real estate professional offers the potential for the parties to reach a creative solution, not contemplated by the contract or lease, benefiting all parties. The solution may simply start with the dispute and look to the relationship more generally. It may consider a variety of options, such as: lengthening or shortening the term of the lease, changing the location or amount of space leased, reconfiguring space, establishing a formula to avoid disputes in future rent reviews, assignment of the lease or subleasing, tenant inducements, or tenant improvements.[7] Such creative solutions are generally not possible or available in the litigation process.[8]
3. Parties Control the Resolution
Mediation is a favored dispute resolution technique because the parties control the outcome. The parties are active participants in the process and are responsible for the agreed upon resolution. When the parties are instrumental in creating the resolution, they are generally more apt to abide by it.
4. Confidentiality
Another benefit of mediation is the proceedings are confidential and the outcome is generally not considered public information. Real estate professionals, developers, contractors, and inspectors place a substantial value on both their time and their reputation.[9] Their future income and success are directly related to both and it is generally not in their best interest to wage a lengthy public litigation if it can be resolved quickly and confidentially.
Confidentiality is also essential to open communication amongst the parties and with the mediator. The fact parties are pursuing mediation usually reflects a level of trust and recognition the adversary is a responsible party who will act fairly and in good faith during the mediation.[10] Parties who might not be comfortable speaking at trail regarding sensitive issues are more inclined to speak during a confidential mediation.[11] Also, the confidential nature of the process gives parties who might not be allowed to speak freely at trial the opportunity to relate their version of the dispute in their own words.[12]
5. Client Education
Mediation also offers the party an invaluable opportunity to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their case.[13] It forces the party to hear and consider the analysis and perspective of an objective third-party. This may force the party to acknowledge hidden weaknesses and be more realistic regarding a possible resolution.[14]
6. Greater Adherence to Final Resolution
Mediation gives the parties the opportunity to control the final resolution of their dispute. Rather than having an outsider, such as a judge, jury or arbitrator, resolve their dispute for them, the parties do it themselves.[15] Gains and losses incurred pursuant to a mediated agreement are more predictable for the parties and the likelihood of satisfaction with the outcome is greatly increased. Mediated agreements tend to hold up over time because the resolution was not imposed upon the parties, but rather crafted by the parties and, therefore, the parties are generally more satisfied with the outcome.[16]
7. Preservation of Relationship
Many commercial real estate experts cite the preservation of business relationships as a major advantage to resolving disputes through mediation rather than lawsuits. Compared to litigation, the nature of mediation is less confrontational, less likely to trigger issues of pride and ego, and more conducive to enabling the parties to work together.[17]
Mediation Clauses
In recent years there has been a growing interest in the use of mediation as a means of resolving real estate disputes rather than using the traditional litigation process. For buyers, sellers, and real estate brokers and agents, including dispute resolution clauses in purchase, sale, or broker contracts removes a dispute from the high-cost litigation system to a more efficient, cost-effective mediation or arbitration process.[18] Typically, the lease will establish either a general right to mediate disputes or will specify mediation for specific issues on which the landlord and tenant have been unable to agree. Although a clause requiring mediation is now found in almost every purchase agreement, many real estate professionals and most clients have little knowledge and experience with mediation.
Conclusion
“A renewed emphasis on creative, privately developed approaches where people take ownership for resolving disputes may provide courts more time and resources to focus on those matters that genuinely require public trial.”[19] Mediation is a voluntary process which requires the parties to focus on resolving their current dispute and preserving their future relationships. The parties must be willing to focus on their present and future needs, and not dwell on who may have been right or wrong. The parties must be open to new options and willing to compromise. Commercial lease dispute are more readily resolved by mediation. For that reason, practitioners should include lease provisions requiring mandatory mediation as a condition prior to seeking judicial resolution.
End Notes
[1] Brian J. Wallace, Resolving Commercial Lease Disputes, at http://www.lawsonlundell.com/resources/
ResolvingCommercialLeaseDisputes.pdf, 2004 (last visited July 23, 2007).
[2] National Arbitration Forum, Resolving Disputes in Commercial Property Sales and Leasing, 3 (October, 2005).
[3] National Arbitration Forum, Resolving Disputes in Commercial Property Sales and Leasing, 4.
[4] Judge Learned Hand, The Deficiencies of Trials to Reach the Heart of the Matter, 3 LECTURES ON LEGAL TOPICS 87, 105 (1926).
[5] Alan R. Seher, Esq., Mediating Real Estate Disputes, at http://www.wwlaw.com/mediate.htm (last visited July 23, 2007)
[6] National Arbitration Forum, Mediating and Arbitrating Commercial Financial Disputes, at http://www.adrforum.com/users/naf/resources/CommercialFinanceWP.pdf, 13-14, December 2005,
[7] Id.
[8] 57 AM JUR Trials 555.
[9] Seher, supra.
[10] Ranking, supra.
[11] 57 AM JUR Trials 555.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Seher, supra.
[16] Id.
[17] Wallace, supra.
[18] National Arbitration Forum, Resolving Disputes in Commercial Property Sales and Leasing, 9.
[19] Pearlstein, at 654 (citing Arthur Pearlstein, The Justice Bazaar: Dispute Resolution through Emergent Private Ordering as a Superior Alternative to Authoritarian Court Bureaucracy, 22 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 739, 740 (2007)).
Biography
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Slusky is the founder and chairman of Slusky Mediation LLC. Jerry serves local and regional clients in real estate and related matters. Jerry is known for his expertise in real estate planning, zoning, development, financing and leasing. In addition to legal training and experiences, Jerry is trained mediator who has studied with the Nebraska Office of Dispute Resolution. Jerry undertook an intensive mediation training workshop offered by the internationally recognized leader in the field of mediation, ADR Chambers. He has eighty hours of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) training conducted in affiliation with Notre Dame University and the University of Windsor in Toronto. Jerry is also a member of the Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR).
Email Author
Website: www.sluskymediation.com
Additional articles by Jerry Slusky
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Jerry Slusky
This article has been modified from its original publishing. The original article first appeared in the ACREL Papers Fall 2007 publication.
April 2008
Mediation has been successful in commercial real estate disputes for several reasons. Due to the nature of the real estate market, land or rental space may not have the same value at the end of litigation as it did when the dispute arose. The value of the parties’ interest may be damaged by injunctions, restraining orders or other restrictions imposed by the courts. Depending on the characteristics of the deal, the nature of the real estate and the uses of the property, a variety of disputes can arise from a commercial property lease transaction.
The common sources of commercial property lease disputes are those issues often contested in commercial real estate transactions and the differing interpretations of lease provisions by the landlord or tenant. These generally include:
rent calculations or review,
annual allocation of property tax and common area expenses,
enforcement of operating covenants,
assignment and subletting restrictions,
landlord consent (usually required not to be withheld unreasonably in relation to assignment or subleasing or quality of proposed tenant alterations),
improvements, changes or alterations to the premises,
expansion or reduction of leased premises,
relocation rights,
options to purchase or rights of first refusal and first opportunity,
adequacy of maintenance,
responsibility for repairs,
exclusive use rights or prohibited uses, and
permissible commercial activities or use restrictions (such a claim may involve a third party who is also a tenant).[1]
Outside of the lease disputes noted above, problems can emerge in other areas, including eviction rights and procedures, identifying the premises, establishing commencement and expiration dates and clarifying conditions surrounding the delivery of commercial space.[2]
Benefits of Mediation in the Commercial Lease Dispute
Mediation advances interests rather than decides rights, and requires willingness to compromise by the parties. A mediator’s assistance in a particular dispute may be the catalyst to bring the parties to reconsider the lease in light of their experience with it. In addition, resolving lease disputes efficiently is often vital to third parties including lenders, appraisers, REITs, and other investors.[3]
1. Less Time and Expense than Litigation
Judge Learned Hand said many years ago, “As a litigant, I should dread a lawsuit above all else, other than sickness and death.”[4] Mediation has the potential to save the parties time and money, especially considering commercial real estate mediations can often be completed in a single day at a fraction of the cost of litigation.
The actual cost of mediation depends on the mediator selected. In a typical real estate mediation, a commercial mediator charges from $150 to $500 per hour, similar to the hourly rates charged by attorneys. A real estate mediation usually lasts three to four hours, but, depending on the complexity of the issues, may well take up to a full day (six or eight hours). Generally, the cost for the mediation and the manner in which cost is apportioned among the parties is set out in the Mediation Agreement. Although mediation is not inexpensive, when litigation can cost each party $25,000 to $75,000 or even more, mediation is well worth considering.[5]
2. Creative Solutions of Complex Issues
Commercial property transactions often involve complex documents with detailed covenants, restrictions, and controls specific to the real estate industry. While judges are capable generalists who can learn about a case in a short period of time, there are significant advantages to having disputes resolved by a neutral mediator with specific knowledge of the issues involved and experience negotiating commercial real estate transactions. In evaluating disputes regarding a commercial property lease, “the mediator should consider what is important to a commercial tenant, property owner, property manager, or landlord concerning the cost of acquiring or leasing the space and can identify issues regarding a proposed use or occupancy.”[6]
Using a mediator who is also an experienced real estate professional offers the potential for the parties to reach a creative solution, not contemplated by the contract or lease, benefiting all parties. The solution may simply start with the dispute and look to the relationship more generally. It may consider a variety of options, such as: lengthening or shortening the term of the lease, changing the location or amount of space leased, reconfiguring space, establishing a formula to avoid disputes in future rent reviews, assignment of the lease or subleasing, tenant inducements, or tenant improvements.[7] Such creative solutions are generally not possible or available in the litigation process.[8]
3. Parties Control the Resolution
Mediation is a favored dispute resolution technique because the parties control the outcome. The parties are active participants in the process and are responsible for the agreed upon resolution. When the parties are instrumental in creating the resolution, they are generally more apt to abide by it.
4. Confidentiality
Another benefit of mediation is the proceedings are confidential and the outcome is generally not considered public information. Real estate professionals, developers, contractors, and inspectors place a substantial value on both their time and their reputation.[9] Their future income and success are directly related to both and it is generally not in their best interest to wage a lengthy public litigation if it can be resolved quickly and confidentially.
Confidentiality is also essential to open communication amongst the parties and with the mediator. The fact parties are pursuing mediation usually reflects a level of trust and recognition the adversary is a responsible party who will act fairly and in good faith during the mediation.[10] Parties who might not be comfortable speaking at trail regarding sensitive issues are more inclined to speak during a confidential mediation.[11] Also, the confidential nature of the process gives parties who might not be allowed to speak freely at trial the opportunity to relate their version of the dispute in their own words.[12]
5. Client Education
Mediation also offers the party an invaluable opportunity to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their case.[13] It forces the party to hear and consider the analysis and perspective of an objective third-party. This may force the party to acknowledge hidden weaknesses and be more realistic regarding a possible resolution.[14]
6. Greater Adherence to Final Resolution
Mediation gives the parties the opportunity to control the final resolution of their dispute. Rather than having an outsider, such as a judge, jury or arbitrator, resolve their dispute for them, the parties do it themselves.[15] Gains and losses incurred pursuant to a mediated agreement are more predictable for the parties and the likelihood of satisfaction with the outcome is greatly increased. Mediated agreements tend to hold up over time because the resolution was not imposed upon the parties, but rather crafted by the parties and, therefore, the parties are generally more satisfied with the outcome.[16]
7. Preservation of Relationship
Many commercial real estate experts cite the preservation of business relationships as a major advantage to resolving disputes through mediation rather than lawsuits. Compared to litigation, the nature of mediation is less confrontational, less likely to trigger issues of pride and ego, and more conducive to enabling the parties to work together.[17]
Mediation Clauses
In recent years there has been a growing interest in the use of mediation as a means of resolving real estate disputes rather than using the traditional litigation process. For buyers, sellers, and real estate brokers and agents, including dispute resolution clauses in purchase, sale, or broker contracts removes a dispute from the high-cost litigation system to a more efficient, cost-effective mediation or arbitration process.[18] Typically, the lease will establish either a general right to mediate disputes or will specify mediation for specific issues on which the landlord and tenant have been unable to agree. Although a clause requiring mediation is now found in almost every purchase agreement, many real estate professionals and most clients have little knowledge and experience with mediation.
Conclusion
“A renewed emphasis on creative, privately developed approaches where people take ownership for resolving disputes may provide courts more time and resources to focus on those matters that genuinely require public trial.”[19] Mediation is a voluntary process which requires the parties to focus on resolving their current dispute and preserving their future relationships. The parties must be willing to focus on their present and future needs, and not dwell on who may have been right or wrong. The parties must be open to new options and willing to compromise. Commercial lease dispute are more readily resolved by mediation. For that reason, practitioners should include lease provisions requiring mandatory mediation as a condition prior to seeking judicial resolution.
End Notes
[1] Brian J. Wallace, Resolving Commercial Lease Disputes, at http://www.lawsonlundell.com/resources/
ResolvingCommercialLeaseDisputes.pdf, 2004 (last visited July 23, 2007).
[2] National Arbitration Forum, Resolving Disputes in Commercial Property Sales and Leasing, 3 (October, 2005).
[3] National Arbitration Forum, Resolving Disputes in Commercial Property Sales and Leasing, 4.
[4] Judge Learned Hand, The Deficiencies of Trials to Reach the Heart of the Matter, 3 LECTURES ON LEGAL TOPICS 87, 105 (1926).
[5] Alan R. Seher, Esq., Mediating Real Estate Disputes, at http://www.wwlaw.com/mediate.htm (last visited July 23, 2007)
[6] National Arbitration Forum, Mediating and Arbitrating Commercial Financial Disputes, at http://www.adrforum.com/users/naf/resources/CommercialFinanceWP.pdf, 13-14, December 2005,
[7] Id.
[8] 57 AM JUR Trials 555.
[9] Seher, supra.
[10] Ranking, supra.
[11] 57 AM JUR Trials 555.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Seher, supra.
[16] Id.
[17] Wallace, supra.
[18] National Arbitration Forum, Resolving Disputes in Commercial Property Sales and Leasing, 9.
[19] Pearlstein, at 654 (citing Arthur Pearlstein, The Justice Bazaar: Dispute Resolution through Emergent Private Ordering as a Superior Alternative to Authoritarian Court Bureaucracy, 22 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 739, 740 (2007)).
Biography
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Slusky is the founder and chairman of Slusky Mediation LLC. Jerry serves local and regional clients in real estate and related matters. Jerry is known for his expertise in real estate planning, zoning, development, financing and leasing. In addition to legal training and experiences, Jerry is trained mediator who has studied with the Nebraska Office of Dispute Resolution. Jerry undertook an intensive mediation training workshop offered by the internationally recognized leader in the field of mediation, ADR Chambers. He has eighty hours of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) training conducted in affiliation with Notre Dame University and the University of Windsor in Toronto. Jerry is also a member of the Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR).
Email Author
Website: www.sluskymediation.com
Additional articles by Jerry Slusky
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Downtown Oakland
One of the positives about doing Mediation is travelling to the community of the dispute. While doing business in downtown Oakland, I took a photo of this classic, that is presently under major remodeling for offices. I believe these prime units are "For Sale"
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Ohio Division of Real Estate Supports Mediation
April 16 2008 Jim W Hildreth Real Estate Mediator
Ohio Department of Commerce & Division of Real Estate support Mediation and the following link ties into its brochure on Mediation.
http://www.com.ohio.gov/real/docs/real_MediationBrochure.pdf
Jim W Hildreth- Real Estate Mediator
www.RealEstateMediation.org
Ohio Department of Commerce & Division of Real Estate support Mediation and the following link ties into its brochure on Mediation.
http://www.com.ohio.gov/real/docs/real_MediationBrochure.pdf
Jim W Hildreth- Real Estate Mediator
www.RealEstateMediation.org
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Gay Couples Face Trouble in Divorce & Real Estate
April 15 2008 Jim W Hildreth Real Estate Mediator
Real Estate Disputes involve differnces in partnerships and they do not discriminate between those who are married, gay or "friends", living together. The pain and loss is equal.
What do we do with the investment property that we have owned, or the second home that is out of state, or sharing an office together.
The home that has lost its value in the current real estate climate in 2008.
I once heard that Real Estate is all about "Dreams" and sometimes those dreams are shattered and they involve real estate.
All parties in a dispute, need to be felt heard and the lines of communication is importnant role of a mediator. Being "Neutral" is key.
The following article is educational as often those who are in "gay" relationships face additional legal challenges that are different in each state.
I share the article has having value.
Some gay couples are having trouble obtaining divorces
By RAY HENRY, Associated Press Writer
PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Gay couples had to struggle mightily to win the right to marry or form civil unions. Now, some are finding that breaking up is hard to do, too.
In Rhode Island, for example, the state's top court ruled in December that gays married in neighboring Massachusetts can't get divorced here because lawmakers have never defined marriage as anything but a union between a man and woman. In Missouri, a judge is deciding whether a lesbian married in Massachusetts can get an annulment.
"We all know people who have gone through divorces. At the end of that long and unhappy period, they have been able to breathe a sigh of relief," said Cassandra Ormiston of Rhode Island, who is splitting from her wife, Margaret Chambers. But "I do not see that on my horizon, that sigh of relief that it's over."
Over the past four years, Massachusetts has been the only state where gay marriage is legal, while nine other states allow gay couples to enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships that offer many of the rights and privileges of marriage. The vast majority of these unions require court action to dissolve.
Gay couples who still live in the state where they got hitched can split up with little difficulty; the laws in those states include divorce or dissolution procedures for same-sex couples. But gay couples who have moved to another state are running into trouble.
Massachusetts, at least early on, let out-of-state gay couples get married there practically for the asking. But the rules governing divorce are stricter. Out-of-state couples could go back to Massachusetts to get divorced, but they would have to live there for a year to establish residency first.
"I find that an unbelievably unfair burden. I own a home here, my friends are here, my life is here," said Ormiston, who is resigned to moving to Massachusetts for a year.
It's not clear how many gay couples have sought a divorce.
In Massachusetts, where more than 10,000 same-sex couples have married since 2004, the courts don't keep a breakdown of gay and heterosexual divorces. But Joyce Kauffman, a member of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association, said probably more than 100 gay divorces have been granted in Massachusetts, and possibly many more.
She said she suspects the divorce rate among gays is lower than that among heterosexual couples, because many of the same-sex couples who got married in Massachusetts had probably been together for years.
Vermont has dissolved 2 percent of the 8,666 civil unions performed there since they became legal in 2000. Those numbers do not include couples who split up in another state.
Chambers and Ormiston wed in Massachusetts in 2004 and filed for divorce in 2006. But the Rhode Island Supreme Court last winter refused to recognize their marriage. That means at least 90 other gay couples from the state who got married in Massachusetts would not be able to divorce in Rhode Island if they wanted to.
Getting a divorce could prove toughest in some of the 40 states that have explicitly banned or limited same-sex unions, lawyers say.
In Missouri, which banned gay marriage in 2001, a conservative lawmaker has urged a judge not to grant an annulment to a lesbian married in Massachusetts.
Oregon started allowing gay couples to form domestic partnerships this year. But to prevent problems similar to those in Massachusetts, lawmakers added a provision that allows couples to dissolve their partnerships in Oregon even if they have moved out of state.
The measure is modeled on California's domestic partnership system and represents a major change in the usual rules governing jurisdiction.
"It's a novel concept in the family law area," said Oregon lawyer Beth Allen, who works with Basic Rights Oregon, a gay rights group.
Same-sex couples can form civil unions in Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire. They can enter into domestic partnerships or receive similar benefits in California, Oregon, Maine, Washington, Hawaii and the District of Columbia.
New York does not permit gay marriage, but a judge there has allowed a lesbian married in Canada to seek a divorce. In 2005, Iowa's Supreme Court upheld the breakup of a lesbian couple who entered into a civil union in Vermont.
Some Rhode Island lawmakers are pushing to legalize gay divorce. But Gov. Don Carcieri, a Republican who opposes gay marriage, is against the idea. So are church leaders in the heavily Roman Catholic state.
"Whatever name they want to give to it, it is a recognition of same-sex unions," said the Rev. Bernard Healey, a lobbyist for Catholic Diocese of Providence.
Jim W Hildreth- Real Estate Mediator
http://www.realestatemediation.org/
Real Estate Disputes involve differnces in partnerships and they do not discriminate between those who are married, gay or "friends", living together. The pain and loss is equal.
What do we do with the investment property that we have owned, or the second home that is out of state, or sharing an office together.
The home that has lost its value in the current real estate climate in 2008.
I once heard that Real Estate is all about "Dreams" and sometimes those dreams are shattered and they involve real estate.
All parties in a dispute, need to be felt heard and the lines of communication is importnant role of a mediator. Being "Neutral" is key.
The following article is educational as often those who are in "gay" relationships face additional legal challenges that are different in each state.
I share the article has having value.
Some gay couples are having trouble obtaining divorces
By RAY HENRY, Associated Press Writer
PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Gay couples had to struggle mightily to win the right to marry or form civil unions. Now, some are finding that breaking up is hard to do, too.
In Rhode Island, for example, the state's top court ruled in December that gays married in neighboring Massachusetts can't get divorced here because lawmakers have never defined marriage as anything but a union between a man and woman. In Missouri, a judge is deciding whether a lesbian married in Massachusetts can get an annulment.
"We all know people who have gone through divorces. At the end of that long and unhappy period, they have been able to breathe a sigh of relief," said Cassandra Ormiston of Rhode Island, who is splitting from her wife, Margaret Chambers. But "I do not see that on my horizon, that sigh of relief that it's over."
Over the past four years, Massachusetts has been the only state where gay marriage is legal, while nine other states allow gay couples to enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships that offer many of the rights and privileges of marriage. The vast majority of these unions require court action to dissolve.
Gay couples who still live in the state where they got hitched can split up with little difficulty; the laws in those states include divorce or dissolution procedures for same-sex couples. But gay couples who have moved to another state are running into trouble.
Massachusetts, at least early on, let out-of-state gay couples get married there practically for the asking. But the rules governing divorce are stricter. Out-of-state couples could go back to Massachusetts to get divorced, but they would have to live there for a year to establish residency first.
"I find that an unbelievably unfair burden. I own a home here, my friends are here, my life is here," said Ormiston, who is resigned to moving to Massachusetts for a year.
It's not clear how many gay couples have sought a divorce.
In Massachusetts, where more than 10,000 same-sex couples have married since 2004, the courts don't keep a breakdown of gay and heterosexual divorces. But Joyce Kauffman, a member of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association, said probably more than 100 gay divorces have been granted in Massachusetts, and possibly many more.
She said she suspects the divorce rate among gays is lower than that among heterosexual couples, because many of the same-sex couples who got married in Massachusetts had probably been together for years.
Vermont has dissolved 2 percent of the 8,666 civil unions performed there since they became legal in 2000. Those numbers do not include couples who split up in another state.
Chambers and Ormiston wed in Massachusetts in 2004 and filed for divorce in 2006. But the Rhode Island Supreme Court last winter refused to recognize their marriage. That means at least 90 other gay couples from the state who got married in Massachusetts would not be able to divorce in Rhode Island if they wanted to.
Getting a divorce could prove toughest in some of the 40 states that have explicitly banned or limited same-sex unions, lawyers say.
In Missouri, which banned gay marriage in 2001, a conservative lawmaker has urged a judge not to grant an annulment to a lesbian married in Massachusetts.
Oregon started allowing gay couples to form domestic partnerships this year. But to prevent problems similar to those in Massachusetts, lawmakers added a provision that allows couples to dissolve their partnerships in Oregon even if they have moved out of state.
The measure is modeled on California's domestic partnership system and represents a major change in the usual rules governing jurisdiction.
"It's a novel concept in the family law area," said Oregon lawyer Beth Allen, who works with Basic Rights Oregon, a gay rights group.
Same-sex couples can form civil unions in Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire. They can enter into domestic partnerships or receive similar benefits in California, Oregon, Maine, Washington, Hawaii and the District of Columbia.
New York does not permit gay marriage, but a judge there has allowed a lesbian married in Canada to seek a divorce. In 2005, Iowa's Supreme Court upheld the breakup of a lesbian couple who entered into a civil union in Vermont.
Some Rhode Island lawmakers are pushing to legalize gay divorce. But Gov. Don Carcieri, a Republican who opposes gay marriage, is against the idea. So are church leaders in the heavily Roman Catholic state.
"Whatever name they want to give to it, it is a recognition of same-sex unions," said the Rev. Bernard Healey, a lobbyist for Catholic Diocese of Providence.
Jim W Hildreth- Real Estate Mediator
http://www.realestatemediation.org/
Dispute over sales Price
Jury sides with Realtor in dispute over sales price
Couple claimed they didn't see relevant comps By Inman News, Tuesday, April 15, 2008.
Inman News
A Carlsbad, Calif., real estate broker who showed a couple dozens of properties before they plunked down $1.2 million for a home near a golf course fulfilled his fiduciary duties to his clients and was not negligent, a jury has ruled.
RE/MAX agent Mike Little was sued by his former clients, Marty and Vern Ummel, who claimed they paid $150,000 too much for their home in northern San Diego County. The Ummels claimed Little failed to tell them about similar homes nearby that sold for less.
Little's attorney, David Bright, said the agent was unfairly blamed for the decline in value of the Ummel's house after they purchased it in July, 2005. Bright argued that homes that sold for less than the couples' had features that made them less desirable.
After a two-week trial, a jury found that Little did not breach his fiduciary duty to the Ummels, providing assistance in their three-month house hunt that included advising them on offers they made on other homes, the Voice of San Diego reported.
Bright told the paper that Realtors have become scapegoats for a declining market, and that the trial demonstrated the hard work that real estate professionals perform for their clients.
Vinnie Tracey, President of RE/MAX International, took issue with news reports that the case raised the possibility that courts might hold real estate agents for lower home values.
"This case was never about falling prices or the current real estate market," Tracey said in a statement. "It was simply about the unfounded claims of an individual home buyer, claims that could not be substantiated in any way."
The Ummels, who gained notoriety picketing RE/MAX offices and home listings, filed suit against Little and RE/MAX Associates in July, 2006. The Ummels attorney said the couple has not decided if they will appeal the decision.
Marty Ummel told the Voice of San Diego that the decision sends "a bad message to people about the real estate industry," because it demonstrated there is not the relationship of trust clients expect.
Jim W Hildreth-Mediator
www.RealEstateMediation.org
Couple claimed they didn't see relevant comps By Inman News, Tuesday, April 15, 2008.
Inman News
A Carlsbad, Calif., real estate broker who showed a couple dozens of properties before they plunked down $1.2 million for a home near a golf course fulfilled his fiduciary duties to his clients and was not negligent, a jury has ruled.
RE/MAX agent Mike Little was sued by his former clients, Marty and Vern Ummel, who claimed they paid $150,000 too much for their home in northern San Diego County. The Ummels claimed Little failed to tell them about similar homes nearby that sold for less.
Little's attorney, David Bright, said the agent was unfairly blamed for the decline in value of the Ummel's house after they purchased it in July, 2005. Bright argued that homes that sold for less than the couples' had features that made them less desirable.
After a two-week trial, a jury found that Little did not breach his fiduciary duty to the Ummels, providing assistance in their three-month house hunt that included advising them on offers they made on other homes, the Voice of San Diego reported.
Bright told the paper that Realtors have become scapegoats for a declining market, and that the trial demonstrated the hard work that real estate professionals perform for their clients.
Vinnie Tracey, President of RE/MAX International, took issue with news reports that the case raised the possibility that courts might hold real estate agents for lower home values.
"This case was never about falling prices or the current real estate market," Tracey said in a statement. "It was simply about the unfounded claims of an individual home buyer, claims that could not be substantiated in any way."
The Ummels, who gained notoriety picketing RE/MAX offices and home listings, filed suit against Little and RE/MAX Associates in July, 2006. The Ummels attorney said the couple has not decided if they will appeal the decision.
Marty Ummel told the Voice of San Diego that the decision sends "a bad message to people about the real estate industry," because it demonstrated there is not the relationship of trust clients expect.
Jim W Hildreth-Mediator
www.RealEstateMediation.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
