Fait v. New Faze Development, Inc.

8 Citing cases

  1. Bedrock Fin., Inc. v. United States

    CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01055-MJS (E.D. Cal. May. 21, 2013)   Cited 2 times

    "[W]aste is conduct on the part of the person in possession of property that substantially impairs a security interest in the property." Fait v. New Faze Development, Inc., 207 Cal.App.4th 284, 295 (2012). "[W]aste is, functionally, a part of the law which keeps in balance the conflicting desires of persons having interests in the same land."

  2. Fait v. American States Insurance Co.

    No. C074549 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2014)

    A separate case arising out of the demolition of the building was previously before this court. (Fait v. New Faze Development, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 284 (Fait).) That case apparently awaits retrial.

  3. Richter v. CC-Palo Alto, Inc.

    Case No. 5:14-CV-00750-EJD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2014)

    Generally, waste cases deal with the "loss of value of a secured interest resulting from actual physical damage to the underlying real property." Id. at *10; see also Fait v. New Faze Dev., Inc., 207 Cal. App. 4th 284, 290 (2012) (plaintiffs alleged their security interest was impaired because the purchasers demolished the building). Moreover, Plaintiffs rely on decisions that involved secured obligations where collateral was pledged as security.

  4. Schellinger Bros. v. Cotter

    2 Cal.App.5th 984 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 40 times
    Forfeiting review for the failure to "set out all evidence pertinent to that determination"

    Yet proof of an overt destructional urge is not required. (See Fait v. New Faze Development, Inc . (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 284, 299, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 382 [“we do not understand the Cornelison decision to conclude that only such ‘despoilers of property’ can be liable for ‘bad faith’ waste,” “defendants may have had the best of intentions, but that ... does not entitle them to escape liability for waste”], 300–301 [“ ‘bad faith’ waste under Cornelison is any waste that is not the result of the economic pressures of a market depression”].) As with ordinary non-bad faith waste, simple but intentional passivity can suffice.

  5. Sheaffer v. Scott Valley Union Sch. Dist.

    No. C069156 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 6, 2012)

    "'When the defendant moves for summary judgment, in those circumstances in which the plaintiff would have the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, the defendant must present evidence that would preclude a reasonable trier of fact from finding that it was more likely than not that the material fact was true [citation], or the defendant must establish that an element of the claim cannot be established, by presenting evidence that the plaintiff "does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence."' (Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 1003.)" (Fait v. New Faze Development, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 284, 293.) If a defendant has met his or her burden of demonstrating the action has no merit, then "the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto."

  6. In re Jean

    BAP NC-14-1198-KuPaJu (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2014)

    In contrast, a cause of action for bad faith waste does not require any particular state of mind. See Fait v. New Faze Dev., Inc., 207 Cal.App.4th 284, 299, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 382 (2012) (holding that bad faith waste occurs " whenever the owner's impairment of the value of the security is not caused by the economic pressures of a market depression, whether the owner acts recklessly, intentionally, maliciously, or with some other mental state."). Moreover, it is clear from the record that the state court jury verdict did not include any findings regarding Jean's mental state.

  7. Jablonowski v. Jean (In re Jean)

    BAP No. NC-14-1198-KuPaJu (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2014)

    In contrast, a cause of action for bad faith waste does not require any particular state of mind. See Fait v. New Faze Dev., Inc., 207 Cal.App.4th 284, 299 (2012) (holding that bad faith waste occurs "whenever the owner's impairment of the value of the security is not caused by the economic pressures of a market depression, whether the owner acts recklessly, intentionally, maliciously, or with some other mental state."). Moreover, it is clear from the record that the state court jury verdict did not include any findings regarding Jean's mental state.

  8. In re Marriage of Georgiou & Leslie

    218 Cal.App.4th 561 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 36 times
    Discussing § 2122

    “[A] case is not authority for a proposition not therein considered.” ( Fait v. New Faze Development, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 284, 301, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 382.) Moreover, the facts of Rossi are readily distinguishable from those here.