The Law Offices of Steven D. Rubin, APC
 
Table of Contents
Seller has duty to disclose existence of previous lawsuits alleging defects in condominium
Choice of Business Entity: Management and Control
Introduction to the Revocable Trust
Exclusions from unlicensed practice of dentistry provisions upon the incapacity or death of dentist
Quick Links
Featured In This Issue

(Real Property Law)
 
Seller has duty to disclose existence of previous lawsuits alleging defects in condominium
Guitar Man Playing
 
In this issue is an article that discusses a recent case that established when a seller of a condominium has a duty to disclose the existence of previous lawsuits alleging defects in the condominium that was sold. That case is Larry Calemine v. Walter Samuelson, 171 Cal. App. 4th 153. The opinion was filed February 17, 2009.
Rubin Law eNews Reporter
THE ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTER OF THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN D. RUBIN, APC
August 2009
 
The Law Offices of Steven D. Rubin, APC
1912 Broadway, Suite 105
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Tel (310) 453-7812/ Fax (310) 496-1686
Top
Dear Clients, Colleagues and Friends,
 
Welcome to the first issue of the Rubin Law eNews Reporter. This electronic newletter intends to address topics that our clients, colleagues and friends have made known to us to be of interest and importance to them. The Rubin Law eNews Reporter does not attempt to offer solutions to individual problems but rather to provide information about current developments in those areas of the law encompassed by our law practice. Readers in need of legal assistance should retain the services of competent counsel.   
(Real Property Law) Seller has a duty to disclose existence of previous lawsuits alleging defects in condominium
 
By Steven Rubin
 
Those of us who live in Southern California know that ourLittle Musician region is home to an innumerable number of condominium developments. Over time, water intrusion is becoming a more common problem experienced by many condominium owners and their homeowner associations. This article discusses a recent case that established when a seller of a condominium has a duty to disclose existence of previous lawsuits alleging defects in the condominium that was sold. That case is Larry Calemine v. Walter Samuelson, 171 Cal. App. 4th 153. The opinion was filed February 17, 2009.
 
The Condominium's Water Intrusion Problems.
 
In February 1983, Samuelson and his wife became the initial owners of a three-story condominium in Woodland Hills, California. Samuelson resided in the condominium until July 2002 when he sold it to Larry and Camille Calemine.
 
Between 1983 and 1999, Samuelson personally observed intermittent incidents of water intrusion and flooding in the lower level of the condominium. In 1986, the Homeowners Association (HOA) and individual unit owners, including Samuelson, brought a lawsuit against the developer alleging design and construction defects in the units and common areas (developer lawsuit). In 1992, the HOA hired Westar Flooring (Westar) to repair and waterproof the affected areas. However, Westar's repairs were not effective throughout the affected areas, and Samuelson knew that the HOA filed a lawsuit against Westar in 1996 (Westar lawsuit).
 
The Westar lawsuit settled in 1998. In the course of doing further repairs, a subsequent contractor notified the HOA including Samuelson that there was no way to guarantee that there would be no further problems related to the water intrusion. Furthermore, suffice it to say that there was plenty of information in the courts' files of the developer lawsuit and Westar lawsuit that would have given many potential buyers cause for concern.
 
The Sale of the Condominium to Appellants.
 
During the fall of 2001, Samuelson and the Calemines began negotiations for the sale of the condominium. While Samuelson fully disclosed to the Calemines the water intrusion and related damage, he did not disclose the developer lawsuit or the Westar lawsuit. Not surprisingly, various inspections and reports reflected the existence of the water intrusion. The Calemines contacted Samuelson for an explanation. Samuelson described the water intrusion and related damage but said the damage had been repaired and "problem solved." Samuelson still did not disclose the developer lawsuit or the Westar lawsuit.
 
The Calemines moved into the condominium in July 2002 when escrow closed. In January 2005, the condominium garage flooded. At that time, the Calemines first learned of the developer lawsuit and the Westar lawsuit. Samuelson had not disclosed the litigation in the transfer disclosure because he believed he was obligated only to disclose pending actions. Nor did Samuelson ever mention the lawsuits during the course of two or three conversations he had with the Calemines during the transaction. The flooding recurred in March 2005 and January and April 2006.
 
At trial, the Calemines contended that Samuelson's disclosures concerning the condominium's water intrusion were inadequate. While the evidence was undisputed that Samuelson sufficiently disclosed the existence of the water intrusion itself, the Calemines contended that of the prior lawsuits would have been material to their decision to purchase the condominium and therefore should have been disclosed. The Calemines lost the argument in the trial court and appealed.
 
The Duty to Disclose.
 
The appellate court rejected Samuelson's contention that the only essential fact required to be disclosed was the existence of the water intrusion itself. The appellate court found that while the details of a lawsuit alleging defects in the property need not be disclosed, a seller's duty of disclosure encompasses disclosure of the existence of such a lawsuit. In other words, once the seller had satisfied its duty of disclosure by informing the buyer of the existence of the litigation and its settlement, "the details of the suit were certainly within the diligent attention of the buyer, who could have examined the file in its entirety to learn all the details of the suit and its settlement."
 
The appellate court noted that notwithstanding Samuelson's admitted knowledge of the developer lawsuit and the Westar lawsuit, he failed to disclose the existence of either action to the Calemines. Disclosure of the litigation would have enabled the Calemines to examine the details of those actions and evaluate their purchase in light of the information available from the prior lawsuits. Without Samuelson's disclosure of the existence of the lawsuits, these matters were not within the Calemines' diligent attention. The materiality of the existence of the lawsuits was also shown by Calemine's declaration, in which he stated that the Calemines would not have purchased the condominium had they known about the prior lawsuits.
(Corporate Law) Choice of Business Entity: Management and Control
 
Source: Matthew Bender, California Legal Forms Transaction Guide

Sole Proprietorship
 
In a sole proprietorship, all management and control rests in the proprietor-owner. The owner has the final responsibility for the decisions in the business, although he or she may delegate authority to employees.
 
General Partnership
 
In a general partnership, all partners share equally in management and control, unless the partnership agreement contains contrary provisions. Ordinarily, the general partnership form offers partners a wide variety of choices in dividing management responsibilities and allocating ownership percentages.
 
In practice, centralization of management may be difficult because each general partner has the authority to bind the partnership when dealing with third parties. When partners disagree on matters arising in the ordinary course of business, a decision of the majority controls; however, certain decisions require the unanimous consent of all the partners, such as an act outside the ordinary course of business or an amendment to the partnership agreement. Each partner is an agent of the partnership and has the authority to bind the partnership in the ordinary course of business, unless the partner does not have the authority to act for the partnership and the other party has knowledge of that fact. Partners may reallocate this sharing of authority in the partnership agreement, by providing that a partner or selected partners manage partnership business or by restricting the authority of a particular partner or partners to act in certain ways.
 
While providing more flexibility of management than a sole proprietorship, effective management of a partnership requires either the ability of all partners to work together or the actual acquiescence of the non-managing partners to the decisions of the managing partner.
 
Limited Partnership
 
In a limited partnership, the general partners have the exclusive right to manage the business. As in a general partnership, management responsibilities may be divided in a variety of ways in the partnership agreement.
 
To maintain their limited liability protection, limited partners may not participate in the control of the business. Their participation is limited to specific acts relating to basic issues of the partnership, such as dissolution or merger. In contrast to the restricted role of limited partners, LLC members may manage the LLC without fear of losing their limited liability.
 
Limited Liability Company
 
A limited liability company may be managed by all of its members, or by one or more managers who may but need not be members. However, unless the articles of organization state than an LLC will be managed by one or more managers, the business of the LLC is managed by all of its members absent any restriction or limitation in the articles or operating agreement. If management is vested in the members, the members have the rights, duties, and obligations of managers.
 
LLC members, much like corporate directors, may manage an LLC without forfeiting their limited liability. In contrast, if a limited partner participates in management, that partner loses his or her protective shield. Management and control rest with the partners of a general partnership; however, the liability of the general partners is unlimited and not restricted to their investments.
 
Corporation
 
An advantage of incorporation is the centralized management that the form provides. Management and control in a corporation vary widely depending on the size of the corporation and the number of shareholders and their rights, as set forth in the incorporation documents. In general, in corporations with a large number of shareholders, ownership and management are separate. Shareholders delegate management and control by electing a board of directors; the board of directors then appoints officers to manage the day-to-day business and implement board policies. Shareholder participation in decision making is generally limited to approving or disapproving major transactions affecting the life of the corporation, including the merger or reorganization of the corporation, the conversion of a corporation into a domestic other business entity, the sale or other disposition of substantially all corporate assets, the dissolution of the corporation, the amendment of the articles of incorporation, and the removal of directors.
 
However, in a corporation with one or a few shareholders, such as a professional corporation, or in a close corporation, management and control does not differ greatly from that of a sole proprietorship or a general partnership because ownership and management is the same. In a close corporation, shareholders, by agreement, may forego management by a board of directors and directly participate in the management of the business in its ordinary course, in a manner resembling that of a general partnership.
 
Although in large corporations management is generally centralized and ownership separate, there are a variety of means of allocating control by using voting agreements, voting trusts, management contracts, or shareholder agreements.
 Back to Top

(Trusts and Estates) Introduction to the Revocable Trust
Vintage Guitar
 
Source: Matthew Bender, California Legal
Forms Transaction Guide
 
Definition
 
A revocable trust is simply a trust that can be revoked by the settlor. A settlor who creates a revocable trust typically retains the power to revoke the trust during his or her lifetime.
 
All revocable trusts are ''living'' trusts; that is, trusts that are created and become operational during the lifetime of the settlor. Since a settlor can revoke a trust only while the settlor is living, a revocable trust may be created only during the settlor's lifetime. In contrast, trusts created by will are known as ''testamentary trusts'' and are always irrevocable. Most revocable trusts become irrevocable at some point during their existence. Typically, this will occur on the settlor's death. When a trust is created by joint settlors, a portion of the trust usually becomes irrevocable on the first settlor's death, with the balance typically remaining revocable during the lifetime of the surviving settlor.
 
Types of Revocable Trusts
 
There are many types of revocable trusts, and these trusts are often categorized according to their purpose, or according to the general pattern of distribution specified in the trust instrument. Some of the more commonly encountered terms used to describe specific characteristics of revocable (as well as testamentary) trusts are:
 
(1) ''Pot'' (or ''family pot'') trust, which describes a single trust fund or share with multiple beneficiaries (who, in the case of a ''family pot" trust, are members of the same family; typically the children and grandchildren of the settlor).
 
(2) ''Separate share'' trust, which describes a trust set up for the benefit of only one income beneficiary; typically a child or grandchild of the settlor under an arrangement whereby a single trust instrument creates separate trusts for each beneficiary.
 
(3) ''Sprinkling'' trust, which describes a trust that gives the trustee discretion to allocate trust income and/or principal among the various trust beneficiaries in accordance with criteria specified in the trust instrument.
 
(4) ''Marital deduction'' trust, which describes a trust designed to avoid federal estate tax on the death of the settlor by naming the settlor's spouse as life beneficiary of the trust in a manner that will qualify for the federal estate tax marital deduction. Marital deduction trusts are further subdivided into ''lifetime income/power of appointment'' trusts, ''qualified terminable interest property'' (or ''QTIP'') trusts, ''qualified domestic trusts'' (or ''QDOTs''), and ''estate trusts.''
 
(5) ''Bypass'' or ''credit shelter'' trust, which describes a trust that is designed to avoid taxation in the estates of both the settlor and the settlor's surviving spouse by taking advantage of the unified credit against federal estate and gift taxes. Bypass trusts typically are used in conjunction with marital deduction trusts.
 
(6) ''Spendthrift'' trust, which describes a trust designed to protect the trust assets from the creditors or prospective creditors of the beneficiary.
 
A given trust may possess a combination of the characteristics discussed above. Thus, for example, a bypass trust may also be a ''sprinkling'' trust as well as a ''spendthrift'' trust. Moreover, it is common for trust instruments to establish more than one individual trust, or to provide for division or (less frequently) combination of trusts at various points during the duration of the estate plan contemplated by the trust instrument.
 
Uses
 
Probate Avoidance
 
In California, revocable trusts are commonly created for the purpose of avoiding probate of the trust assets on the settlor's death. Because the trustee and not the settlor holds title to the assets, it is not necessary to subject the assets to probate administration when the settlor dies. The trustee continues to hold the assets after the settlor's death. This continuity of title is not affected by the settlor's death. If the settlor was the original trustee, a successor trustee (designated in the trust instrument or appointed by the court) will take over the original trustee's duties when the settlor dies. Settlors commonly serve as trustees of revocable living trusts without impairing the probate avoidance objectives of the trusts.
 
 
However, probate will be avoided only to the extent that assets are actually transferred to the trustee while the settlor is living. If an asset is outside the trust when the settlor dies, that asset is not part of the trust and cannot be dealt with by the trustee or successor trustee. Unless the asset can be transferred in some other way (for example, by a judicial ''set aside'' or affidavit procedure), the asset will be subject to probate.
 
Asset Management and Avoidance of Conservatorship
 
Asset management is the second major reason for creating a revocable trust. A settlor who is unable or unwilling to manage his or her own assets may prefer to transfer that responsibility to someone else. Asset management may be achieved by entering into a management contract with a professional investment adviser or manager, or by creating a trust and transferring the assets that are to be managed to the trustee. The trustee will have the responsibility for collecting income from the assets, paying expenses (including taxes) attributable to the assets, seeing to it that the assets are properly insured and maintained, and, when appropriate, selling the assets and investing the proceeds in other property.
 
Asset management is ordinarily a concern to two classes of persons: (1) those who are unsuited by training, experience, or natural ability to manage assets that they have acquired by inheritance or gift; and (2) persons who cannot manage their own assets because they are incapacitated, or who are concerned that they may become incapacitated at some later time. For example, spouses and children with little business experience or aptitude sometimes inherit substantial estates that they are ill-prepared to manage. Realizing their limitations, they may elect to transfer the assets to the trustee of a revocable trust so that the trustee will manage the assets. If the assets are valuable, they may select a trustee with professional property management experience (for example, a bank, trust company, or individual professional private fiduciary).
 
A person who has acquired a substantial estate through his or her own efforts may have no difficulty in managing the assets now, but may anticipate that he or she may lose interest or have difficulties in the future. Such a person may create a revocable trust, name himself or herself as the original trustee, designate another person (or bank) as the successor trustee, and authorize the successor trustee to take over the trust if and when the settlor no longer wants to manage the trust assets or becomes incapacitated. This will help to avoid the necessity for seeking the appointment of a conservator if the settlor ever becomes incapacitated. Conservatorships, like probate proceedings, are highly regulated and typically involve expensive and time-consuming judicial proceedings. A revocable trust (particularly when executed in conjunction with a durable power of attorney for property management) may avoid the need for a conservatorship.
 
Preserving Privacy
 
The revocable trust is well suited to preserving the settlor's privacy, both during the settlor's lifetime and after the settlor's death. If assets are held in the name of the trustee, it may be possible to conceal the settlor's true identity as the owner of the trust assets. Third parties, such as brokers, transfer agents, and title insurers, may ask to examine the trust instrument (which will, of course, disclose the identity of the settlor), but the instrument itself is not a public document. It need not be recorded, and it can be shielded from unwanted public examination (except in the rare case when litigation concerning the affairs of the trust becomes necessary).
 
Saving Taxes
 
Clients sometimes are under the impression that revocable trusts may be used as tax-savings devices. As a general proposition, this is not true. Revocable trusts are often described as ''tax-neutral''--that is, as a general rule they neither increase nor decrease overall income or estate tax liability. Because the settlor retains the power to revoke a revocable trust, no irrevocable transfer of the trust assets takes place until the settlor dies, and the settlor's assets therefore are included in the settlor's estate for federal estate tax purposes. Similarly, the income of a revocable trust is taxed to the settlor for federal income tax purposes.
 
Choosing Between Revocable Living Trust and Irrevocable Trust
 
Revocable living trusts differ from irrevocable trusts in one obvious key respect: revocability. Although this difference in itself is relatively simple to understand, the consequences that flow from the difference have enormous importance.
 
Since the right to revoke a trust is an important and valuable right, a settlor will usually give up that right only in return for some advantage. Typically, this advantage will be a tax advantage. As discussed above, a revocable living trust is not treated as a separate entity for tax purposes. In contrast, irrevocable trusts that meet applicable tax requirements are treated as separate entities for federal income and estate tax purposes. Income generated by the trust is taxed to the trust itself, or to the trust beneficiaries, rather than to the settlor, and trust assets will not be subject to estate taxation in the settlor's estate when the settlor dies.
 
Creation of an irrevocable trust, or transfer to an existing irrevocable trust, may generate gift tax liability to the settlor or donor at the time of transfer. However, any subsequent appreciation in the trust assets ordinarily is removed from the settlor's estate, and thereby may escape some or all of the estate and income tax to which it otherwise would be subject.
 
The essential difference between the uses of revocable living trusts versus irrevocable trusts in estate planning may be better understood if the irrevocable trust is thought of as a gift substitute and the revocable living trust is thought of as a probate substitute. An irrevocable trust is used to give property away during the settlor's lifetime, while a revocable living trust is used to retain the property during the settlor's lifetime and pass it to designated beneficiaries without probate after the settlor's death.
(Professional Corporations) Exclusions from the unlicensed practice of dentistry upon the incapacity or death of a dentist
Scale of Justice
 
By Steven Rubin
 
Upon the incapacity or death of a dentist, if certain requirements discussed below are met, any of the following persons (individually a "Specified Person," and collectively "Specified Persons") may employ licensees and dental assistants and charge for the professional services they render for a period not to exceed 12 months from the date of the dentist's death or incapacity without being deemed to be practicing dentistry under current law:
 
(1) The legal guardian, conservator, or authorized representative of an incapacitated dentist.
 
(2) The executor or administrator of the estate of a dentist who is deceased.
 
(3) The named trustee or successor trustee of a trust or subtrust that owns assets consisting only of the incapacitated or deceased dentist's dental practice and that was established solely for the purpose of disposition of the dental practice upon the dentist's incapacity or death.
 
Provided, however, the Specified Persons shall not interfere with, control, or otherwise direct the professional judgment of a licensee or dental assistant acting within his or her scope of practice as defined in this chapter.
 
The Requirements
 
Where the dental practice of an incapacitated or deceased dentist is a sole proprietorship or where an incapacitated or deceased dentist is the sole shareholder of a professional dental corporation, a Specified Person may enter into a contract with one or more dentists licensed in the state to continue the operations of the incapacitated or deceased dentist's dental practice for a period of no more than 12 months from the date of death or incapacity, or until the practice is sold or otherwise disposed of, whichever occurs first, if all of the following conditions are met:
 
(1) The Specified Person delivers to the California Dental Board (hereinafter "board") a notification of death or incapacity that includes all of the following information:
  
(A) The name and license number of the deceased or incapacitated dentist.
 
(B) The name and address of the dental practice.
 
(C) If the dentist is deceased, the name, address, and tax identification number of the estate or trust.
 
(D) The name and license number of each dentist who will operate the dental practice.
 
(E) A statement that the information provided is true and correct, and that the Specified Person understands that any interference by the person or by his or her assignee with the contracting dentist's or dentists' practice of dentistry or professional judgment is grounds for immediate termination of the operations of the dental practice without a hearing. The statement shall also provide that if the Specified Person required to make this notification willfully states as true any material fact that he or she knows to be false, he or she shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in an action brought by any public prosecutor. A civil penalty imposed under this subparagraph shall be enforced as a civil judgment.
 
(2) The dentist or dentists who will operate the practice shall be licensed by the board and that license shall be current, valid, and shall not be suspended, restricted, or otherwise the subject of discipline.
 
(3) Within 30 days after the death or incapacity of a dentist, the Specified Person or the contracting dentist or dentists shall send notification of the death or incapacity by mail to the last known address of each current patient of record with an explanation of how copies of the patient's records may be obtained. This notice may also contain any other relevant information concerning the continuation of the dental practice. The failure to comply with the notification requirement within the 30-day period shall be grounds for terminating the operation of the dental practice under subdivision (b). The contracting dentist or dentists shall obtain a form signed by the patient, or the patient's guardian or legal representative, that releases the patient's confidential dental records to the contracting dentist or dentists prior to use of those records.
 
(b) The board may order the termination of the operations of a dental practice operating pursuant to this section if the board determines that the practice is operating in violation of this section. The board shall provide written notification at the address provided pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a). If the board does not receive a written appeal of the determination that the practice is operating in violation of this section within 10 days of receipt of the notice, the determination to terminate the operations of the dental practice shall take effect immediately. If an appeal is received in a timely manner by the board, the executive officer of the board, or his or her designee, shall conduct an informal hearing. The decision of the executive officer or his or her designee shall be mailed to the practice no later than 10 days after the informal hearing, is the final decision in the matter, and is not subject to appeal under the Administrative Procedure Act.
 
(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), if the board finds evidence that the Specified Person, or his or her assignee, has interfered with the practice or professional judgment of the contracting dentist or dentists or otherwise finds evidence that a violation of this section constitutes an immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, the board may immediately order the termination of the operations of the dental practice without an informal hearing.
 
(d) A notice of an order of immediate termination of the dental practice without an informal hearing, as referenced in subdivision (b), shall be served by certified mail on the Specified Person at the address provided pursuant to subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), as appropriate, and on the contracting dentist or dentists at the address of the dental practice provided pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a).
 
(e) A person receiving notice of an order of immediate termination pursuant to subdivision (d) may petition the board within 30 days of the date of service of the notice for an informal hearing before the executive officer or his or her designee, which shall take place within 30 days of the filing of the petition.
 
(f) A notice of the decision of the executive officer or his or her designee following an informal hearing held pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be served by certified mail on the Specified Person at the address provided pursuant to subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), as appropriate, and on the contracting dentist or dentists at the address of the dental practice provided pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a).
 
(g) The board may require the submission to the board of any additional information necessary for the administration of this section.
 Back to Top
Copyright 2009 by The Law Offices of Steven D. Rubin, A Professional Corporation. To request addition to or removal from our mailing list contact Steven Rubin at The Law Offices of Steven D. Rubin, A Professional Corporation, 1912 Broadway, Suite 105, Santa Monica, CA 90404, phone (310) 453-7812. The Rubin Law eNews Reporter does not attempt to offer solutions to individual problems, but rather to provide information about current developments in those areas of the law encompassed by our law practice. Readers in need of legal assistance should retain the services of competent counsel.