By Colin McCarthy, J.D., Robinson & Wood, San Jose, CA

That’s not the quote, is it? No that’s right, it’s not. The quote is “With great power comes great responsibility.” Notwithstanding, we discussed the immunity provisions granted by the California Civil Code with respect to a volunteer director’s conduct that might be considered a “tort.” So what the legislature gives, it also gives duties. That’s not the quote either. It’s something about what the legislature gives it also takes away. My right hand does not know what the left is doing, either, by the way. But I digress. Are you still reading this?

The same Article of the Act that provides immunity for such volunteer directors also sets forth affirmative duties that all HOAs must follow. They can give themselves “more stringent” duties, but at a minimum, they must: 1. review operating accounts quarterly; 2. review reconciliation accounts of association reserves; 3. quarterly review reserve revenue and expenses; 4. review account statements from financial institutions in which reserve funds are placed; and 5. every quarter review income and expenses for operations and reserve accounts.

There is a subset of requirements regarding reserve accounts, in place to protect the maintenance of the complex and its maintenance areas. Who can sign checks, how much has to be in the reserve, what it can be used for. But there is another affirmative duty that dovetails into the theme of our last two blog entries and indeed, a lot of these entries regarding landlords in general. That is the duty to inspect.

“At least once every three years” the HOA board is to have the premises inspected, visually, in a reasonably competent and diligent manner. This is in conjunction with keeping the right amount of funds in the reserve accounts. But included in all of these inspections are requirements of identifying costs of repairs, for the “repair, replacement, restoration, or maintenance” of any identified repair needs.

In essence, the HOA is required to document what needs work, what arguably could later cause injury or property damage, how much it will cost to fix, and even estimate how much longer such conditions will exist (useful life). This would be great evidence in a lawsuit. Sounds like a subpoena for documents to me. So if folks were hoping for the protections of immunity without corresponding responsibilities, they might have been reminded of another quote: “Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.” That quote is right. I’m pretty sure of it.

This blog submission is only for purposes of disseminating information. It does not constitute legal advice. The statements in this blog submission do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Robinson & Wood, Inc. or its clients. No attorney-client relationship is formed by virtue of reading this blog entry or submitting a comment thereto. If you need legal advice, please hire a licensed attorney in your state.

By Colin McCarthy, J.D., Robinson & Wood, San Jose, CA

I like insurance law. Not many people do, but I do. But then again, I like heavy metal and not many people like that either. (Their loss. And my hearing loss. I digress). I like insurance law because it feels good to help policyholders obtain insurance coverage, and I am also rewarded when the insurance contract is upheld to enforce the mutual agreement of the parties — insurance coverage is denied because there was no agreement to cover a particular loss. I work with both policyholders and insurance companies and I see both sides of the equation. Sometimes the law interjects to help or hinder the implications of the insurance contract in real-world situations, such as when a volunteer HOA director participates in negligent conduct that leads to an injury.

In California, the Civil Code has some statutes that protect the volunteer director from the liability scenario we discussed last post. As a refresher, that director participated in conduct that was arguably negligent with respect to known criminal activity and ordered some lights installed in the common area removed. Later, someone got hurt and sued the HOA and that director for removing the lights and leading to a criminal assault. The director was a volunteer but nonetheless was potentially personally liable. Enacted a couple of years after that lawsuit, Civil Code §1365.7 provides some protection for similarly situated directors.

That section provides immunity for a volunteer director of a residential HOA, as long as the HOA maintains certain levels of certain types of insurance. If the HOA manages less than 100 units, there should be $500,000 of coverage for both general liability (i.e., CGL policy for the complex) and also for the directors (i.e., D&O — Directors and Officers insurance). As long as that insurance is maintained, and the person does not get paid for being a director, he will receive the benefit of this section. He also will have done the tort while in course and scope as a director, done in good faith, and without reckless or intentional conduct. The protections go away if that “volunteer” owns more than two interests in the development.

The net effect of these rules is that the volunteer director will not have to pay anything out of pocket when he otherwise might have had to. See? Insurance is fun!

This blog submission is only for purposes of disseminating information. It does not constitute legal advice. The statements in this blog submission do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Robinson & Wood, Inc. or its clients. No attorney-client relationship is formed by virtue of reading this blog entry or submitting a comment thereto. If you need legal advice, please hire a licensed attorney in your state.

By Colin McCarthy, J.D., Robinson & Wood, San Jose, CA

So in American Horror Story, after some certain traumatic events occur and the building’s history is uncovered, the protagonists STILL don’t move out of the house. The writers are nuanced enough to know that the audience will ask the question “Why do they not move out now?” So they actually attack this head on. Money problems prevent both an immediate move-out and obstruct a potential sale. So because I like to think I am still more nuanced than the newly nuanced writers, I counter with: “Why don’t you just rent the place out?”

Somebody could move in and you could get paid for it. Not only will you get paid rent, you will also be removed from liability for injuries to third parties entering on the premises, the thinking goes. Well, the first part would be true. The second part — non-liability of an owner not in possession — is not as clear.

We know from our previous entries that possession and control are big factors in imposing liability. An absent landlord is not necessarily in possession, and may or may not have control. The law we know trends to basic duty of care obligations. The out-of-possession owner must act as a reasonably prudent person in similar circumstances.

They have to do those things that they can do to prevent injury, such as inspect the premises as permitted by the lease or between renters. You may be relieved while out of possession if there was no opportunity to inspect for new dangers. If the danger was added or formed after you left and you did not know or have the opportunity to inspect, there is a strong argument for relief. The defense is probably stronger in a commercial setting owing to the sophisticated nature of the tenant, the stronger lease language regarding duties, and an inability or obligation to inspect when a sophisticated commercial tenant is installed and alters the property.

In residential or commercial leases, the California courts have set forth their factors for determining the existence of a duty. These harken back to our very first discussions and the “Rowland” factors, for any of you paying attention. The factors are “likelihood of injury, the probable seriousness of such injury, the burden of reducing or avoiding the risk, and his degree of control over the risk-creating defect.”* All of this assumes the out-of-possession lessor knew or could have known about such risk-creating defects. If he did, the essence is, was there potential for serious injury and if so, could the out-of-possession owner get in there and fix the situation?

Perhaps because this area was not so clear, the ever-so-clever American Horror Story writers avoided the rental idea. Maybe they knew all about this.

*Brennan v. Cockrell Invest., Inc., 35 Cal. App. 3d 796, 801 (1973)

This blog submission is only for purposes of disseminating information. It does not constitute legal advice. The statements in this blog submission do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Robinson & Wood, Inc. or its clients. No attorney-client relationship is formed by virtue of reading this blog entry or submitting a comment thereto. If you need legal advice, please hire a licensed attorney in your state.

By Colin McCarthy, J.D., Robinson & Wood, San Jose, CA

So my wife and I recently started binge watching American Horror Story on Netflix. It stars that Dylan McDreamy from those ’90s WB teen dramas, and the wife of the coach on Friday Night Lights, Connie Britton. She is great, as usual. He is able to muster tears at the drop of the hat, as usual. But like most horror films/series that involve strange happenings in a house, these two characters never get out of a house that they so obviously should have never bought in the first place. And then when, [spoiler alert] you know, they are almost murdered by copycat killers and find out the house is on a famous murders of L.A. tour, they STILL don’t move out. It takes some steam out of the proceedings. In between the quite obviously scary parts — the first four or so episodes were really, really scary — I found myself, as you would, contemplating the legal implications of all this on-the-screen horror.

So, prior to purchase, the real estate agent discloses to McDreamy and coach’s wife that, oh, by the way, the previous owners died in a murder/suicide. But she does not disclose that, oh, just about every previous occupant has also been murdered or sent to prison. The fabricated legal explanation of a three-year period aside, I found myself thinking that it would be a pretty big concealment — i.e., misrepresentation — to not mention such shenanigans.

But the really fun part was thinking — could McDreamy and coach’s wife sue the prior owner for the obvious dangers lurking in the basement? Well, maybe in real life they could, for dangers in the house that the previous owner knew about but did not fix or disclose. Property sold, new owner gets sued by new tenants, can tenant or new owner go after the seller? There are three (as usual) ways the law in California looks at that type of issue.

One way of thinking is that, hey, “carpe diem,” baby. No, not really – not “seize the day.”* I mean “caveat emptor” — buyer beware. The law might look at the new owner and say that the previous owner’s liability ended when he sold the property to the new owner. The buyer, after all, if he has any sense, has to do an inspection. (Hint: Be sure to look in the BASEMENT!) Another way of thinking, which is probably more modern, is to put the prior owner on the hook if the defect was known, not so obvious, or hidden (like that demon that only appears from time to time in the basement), or if the property as sold presents a risk to persons off the premises. Finally, if the seller created the hazard (such as by ill-advised seance), then he may be liable.

So the moral is, always check the basement and move out the moment you get a whiff of funny activity there, or if you find out your house is on the L.A. murders tour.

*Obviously, you know this movie. But virtual high five if you put it in the comments section without googling.

This blog submission is only for purposes of disseminating information. It does not constitute legal advice. The statements in this blog submissions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Robinson & Wood, Inc. or its clients. No attorney-client relationship is formed by virtue of reading this blog entry or submitting a comment thereto. If you need legal advice, please hire a licensed attorney in your state.

By Colin McCarthy, J.D., Robinson & Wood, San Jose, CA

I saw and liked the latest James Bond flick. I say latest and not “new” because I realize it was released last year and by now everyone is discussing Django Unchained. I will be ready to discuss that film in six months, when I have time to see it. Skyfall was good, but something about it bugged me. In discussing it with my brother and reading some reviews after the fact, it occurred to me: it wasn’t any fun. It was so serious! Who wants to see a drunk, depressed James Bond? Not me. He didn’t even say “Shaken, not stirred.” They just showed the bartender shaking the martini.

Fellow blog persons, as we look back at 2012, I hope I avoided Skyfall syndrome. This should be fun. Even though we discussed some serious stuff, hopefully we had fun. We have pretty thoroughly discussed the types of situations that can lead to landlord liability for injuries or damages to others, and the circumstances for attaching liability. It’s all about notice, control, and the opportunity to correct people. Having thoroughly flogged that horse to death, we’re going to shift gears and start talking about issues to look for in defending against such actions. There are (as usual) three main areas we’re going to look at. See? This is fun!

First, we’ll delve into some detail about which persons or entities are the “landlord” for purposes of imposing liability. Is it the owner, the lessor, the sub-lessor, or all three? What about the person who sold me this money pit? Can the former owner be roped into this instead of me for that obvious hole-in-the-floor trip hazard? What about the vending machine operator who maintains the soda machine that tore that guy’s hand off? Or the HOA? Which among these various entities will be on the hook?

Next, we will take a look at some potential laws (i.e., “statutes”) which provide defense (“immunity”) to such liability suits. Many states, including California, have various laws on the books which will provide the landlord defendant with a complete defense to an action wherein liability would otherwise be imposed. In other words, even if the landlord had notice, control, and an opportunity to fix, in certain circumstances the law will exonerate the defendant for public policy reasons. One such law in California provides immunity for serving booze at parties under most circumstances, so as not to mute one’s inclination to have parties. (I think a certain Buildium man’s birthday is coming up in February and I intend to celebrate it — with or without him.) We’ll talk about some of the more obvious ones to look for.

Finally, we will bust out the old case books to talk about some other defenses a landlord/owner can raise when sued. The common law of American jurisprudence and its origins in English law offer up a “plethora”* of other defenses that can be raised to defeat claims against a landlord/owner for actions. These are some concepts like “the firefighters rule” — sounds exciting, doesn’t it?!

That should take us through a good part of the year. Thanks for reading, and hope I don’t bore you.

*Virtual high five who can name the movie in which that word was used in the following context:

“Would you say I had a plethora of birthday gifts?”

“Oh, yea, boss, yea. I would say you have a plethora of birthday gifts.”

This blog submission is only for purposes of disseminating information. It does not constitute legal advice. The statements in this blog submissions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Robinson & Wood, Inc. or its clients. No attorney-client relationship is formed by virtue of reading this blog entry or submitting a comment thereto. If you need legal advice, please hire a licensed attorney in your state.

By Colin McCarthy, J.D., Robinson & Wood, San Jose, CA

I recently had a neighbor suggest to me that we jointly fund a new fence along my side of the property that adjoined his. The fence was dilapidated here, but nowhere else. I was open to the idea, but wondered why I should share in the cost if this was the only place my fence was having problems. On all of the other adjoining property lines the fence is fine. Why this one? Maybe because his property was six inches higher than mine on his side of the fence and was pushing into mine? Fences are frustrating.

So why would you want to build one on property you rent? There would appear to be no common law duty in California to erect fencing to prevent entry onto your rented property to prevent injury or property damage. (Check your local laws to see if they are in accord). Some scenarios might compel it — to keep third parties away from a pool or electrical hazard. But absent some kind of foreseeable danger, there would not be a requirement at law.

Indeed, could it promote new obligations if the landlord builds a fence? Certainly, the landlord would have to maintain that fence, once built. He would not want to build a dangerous one. One with loose boarding. With nails sticking out. Or a ladder leading right to barbed wire. And if the landlord builds a fence on his residential rented property, he would have to maintain it to prevent little tykes who reside therein from busting loose onto adjoining property and getting injured.

Wait a minute. What? He would? Yes. If, say, there was a creek on nearby — but not owned — property, and the landlord put the fence up to keep his tenants away from the creek, the act of creating this fence is an act of exercising “control” over the adjoining land, thereby suggesting a duty to prevent injuries on that adjoining property. Cases in California have held a duty in such scenarios.

This is contrasted in those situations where there may be a dangerous condition nearby and the landlord does not erect a fence, such as near a busy road.  There, the landlord does not owe a duty because he did not exercise any control over the busy road by erecting a fence. The plaintiff, in one case which found no duty on the part of the landlord, ”was one of many children residing in an unfenced apartment complex that fronted on a busy road. He was injured when he walked off the premises, into the road, and was struck by an automobile.”  McDaniel v. Sunset Manor Co., 220 Cal. App. 3d 1, 10 (1990).

So is it better not to erect a fence at all? As we lawyers like to say, it all depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular property and tenants. Since ATPM blog readers are responsible types, there is a strong argument to be made that the erection of a fence to prevent injury on an adjoining property is not only the right thing to do, but one which will prevent injuries (and thereby lawsuits). These loyal readers will not let their fences fall into disrepair, and thus avoid the problem altogether.

This blog submission is only for purposes of disseminating information. It does not constitute legal advice. The statements in this blog submissions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Robinson & Wood, Inc. or its clients. No attorney-client relationship is formed by virtue of reading this blog entry or submitting a comment thereto. If you need legal advice, please hire a licensed attorney in your state.

By Colin McCarthy, J.D., Robinson & Wood, San Jose, CA

One of my favorite movies of all time (I have a lot of them), Die Hard, has many great lines which I like to quote. Frequently it’s the “yippee-ki-yay” line, usually right as I am about to win a case. Sometimes it’s “What were you doing with the detonators, Hans?” for no real reason. I also like “You asked for miracles? I give you the F. (pause) B. (pause) I.” But one of my favorite lines and the one that gets the ball rolling on all of the above is in the opening scene, when our hero arrives at the airport in L.A., and sees a California girl act silly and leap into the arms of her man. Bruce simply says with a shake of the head: “California.”

He is so right. California is a great place, but sometimes it does merit the odd shake of the head. Here is an example: Did you know that for purposes of strict products liability, a residential dwelling that injures is considered a “product,” provided it meets certain requirements? Strict products liability makes it even easier to find liability against defendants for injuries by eliminating certain proof requirements. So it’s easier to sue a “product” manufacturer for injuries than under other circumstances.

In some cases, it will be easier in California to sue a home builder for injuries brought about by things in the home on this strict products liability theory. Fortunately for the smaller-end builder, it usually does not apply. It applies to the large-scale residential home developer. It typically will not apply to the builder who does an occasional home build and sells. The idea is that the large-scale developer is presenting itself as a leader in building homes and has expertise and skill on which the home buyer is relying. That is not the case with the person who builds homes on a more isolated basis. It is also not the case with the subcontractors working for the large-scale home developers.

The subcontractors also do not make a “product” per se but provide a service, whereas the developer of large-scale residential developments is placing “products” of individual residential units into the stream of commerce. If they injure, say by a bad design, the entity that places that “product” into the stream of commerce will be liable.

Which begs the totally unrelated question: Do you think Bruce Willis’ character totally got sued for all the property damage he caused at Nakatomi Tower? Maybe not, but if I were him I would have sued that TV reporter for invasion of privacy …

This blog submission is only for purposes of disseminating information. It does not constitute legal advice. The statements in this blog submissions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Robinson & Wood, Inc. or its clients. No attorney-client relationship is formed by virtue of reading this blog entry or submitting a comment thereto. If you need legal advice, please hire a licensed attorney in your state.

By Colin McCarthy, J.D., Robinson & Wood, San Jose, CA

So we have covered a landlord’s liability for criminals, animals, and drunks. What about for tenants with guns? Does a landlord have any duty to third parties if he knows his tenant has guns? What about if he knows the tenant has guns but never uses them? What if the opposite is true? The landlord knows the tenant has guns and likes to use them. In the back yard of the rented premises. In the direction of occupied houses. Is there a duty? (What you think people?! You’ve read enough to know which way the Honorable Judge McCarthy would rule! Or have you?) If there is a duty, what does that duty entail?

In one case on these facts, the parents of a 10-year-old girl who was accidentally shot and killed sued the landlord of the person who shot the girl. The tenant was in the back yard of the rented premises when he discharged the weapon. He did so in a direction facing the occupied premises of the decedent 10-year-old. The tenant had done this in the preceding month and the landlord knew it, or so it had been alleged. The issue was whether the landlord owed a duty to the 10-year-old girl.

Whether there was a duty turned on the notice of the condition, and the opportunity to fix it. To impose the duty “the landlord must also have the opportunity and the ability to eliminate the dangerous condition being created by the tenant.” Rosales v. Stewart, 113 Cal. App. 3d 130, 134 (1980). In other words, the landlord must have not only a means to stop the tenant from firing his gun in this manner, but the landlord must have also had the chance to do so. So the means to prevent it here could have been eviction. But whether the eviction could have been effectuated from notice of the condition to the time of the gun discharge causing the death would determine whether there was an opportunity to correct the condition.

So if the landlord only learned about the prior gun shooting incident a day or two before the death, he may have had a notice and means to prevent the death. But he would not have had the “opportunity” because one cannot usually evict his tenant in two days. There was no duty in that case as alleged, because “there was no allegation that the knowledge by the landlord preceded a renewal of the tenancy … or that the rental agreement could otherwise have been terminated prior to the injury.” Rosales v. Stewart, 113 Cal. App. 3d 130, 135 (1980).

That was not the end of the story, however. The appellate justices allowed the plaintiffs an opportunity to re-draft their allegations to include opportunity for the landlord to correct by eviction or some other means. We do not know the outcome after the case was remanded, but it is likely that the plaintiffs would have to have the lease agreement in hand or a good working knowledge of local eviction laws. The opportunity allegations would hinge on whether they could colorably state that there was an opportunity to evict in the short time between notice of condition and the death.

This blog submission is only for purposes of disseminating information. It does not constitute legal advice. The statements in this blog submissions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Robinson & Wood, Inc. or its clients. No attorney-client relationship is formed by virtue of reading this blog entry or submitting a comment thereto. If you need legal advice, please hire a licensed attorney in your state.

By Colin McCarthy, J.D., Robinson & Wood, San Jose, CA

Well my last post was so good I did not have the courage to write another. About six months ago we were discussing various scenarios by which a landlord could be held liable in California for injuries or property damage occasioned by her tenants. We discussed how, if she knows about a tenant’s animals’ dangerous propensities, she might have a duty to prevent injuries of property damage to others arising from such dangerous propensities. Citation to the holy hand grenade scene must have subconsciously made me think I had reached my pinnacle in blog writing material. No more blog posts! Until now.

What inspired this sudden turn of events? Alcohol. And a recent Buffalo Wild Wings beer with a Buildium person. As we discussed Buildium and life over beers, it occurred to me that I needed to re-engage the ATPM blog readers regarding the perils of tenants’ overindulgence in alcohol and resultant personal injuries and property damage. Is there liability? If the landlord knows the tenant has a gun and is a heavy drinker, is she liable if the tenant shoots someone while drunk? Is the drinker the equivalent of a dangerous dog?

In California, the landlord will not have a duty where she merely knows the tenant is a drinker and has guns. In one case, the plaintiff was a visitor of the tenants and was shot when the tenant was drinking. The landlord knew the tenant was a drinker and knew he had firearms. The landlord was not aware of any circumstances that suggested the tenant was dangerous with the guns when drinking. So there really was no notice to the landlord of a danger she should have prevented or been warned about. ”If the court concludes the injury was not foreseeable, there was no duty.”  Sturgeon v. Curnutt, 29 Cal. App. 4th 301, 306 (1994).  The court here concluded the injury was not foreseeable. And thus the landlord had no duty to prevent it. The landlord won.

In a similar case, a college was exonerated from civil liability for injuries sustained after some students got drunk and went racing.  I’m sorry — “became intoxicated” and “engaged in a speed contest.” In this case, the court held that it was not foreseeable that in-dormitory drinking would lead to an off-campus automobile drag race. The “conduct of students, without known violent propensities and without knowledge that they would drink to excess and thereafter operate motor vehicles, does not rise to the level of foreseeable harm as does a case where the tenant has a known vicious dog.”  Baldwin v. Zoradi, 123 Cal. App. 3d 275, 294 (1981).

Obviously, the appellate justices in that case had not seen the second-greatest movie of all time — Animal House.

This blog submission is only for purposes of disseminating information. It does not constitute legal advice. The statements in this blog submissions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Robinson & Wood, Inc. or its clients. No attorney-client relationship is formed by virtue of reading this blog entry or submitting a comment thereto. If you need legal advice, please hire a licensed attorney in your state.

By Colin McCarthy, J.D., Robinson & Wood, San Jose, CA

As everyone knows, Monty Python and the Holy Grail is the greatest movie ever made. Especially for the scene involving the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog. In it, several of the Knights of the Round Table are cut down in a blood bath by a particularly vicious, cute, cuddly white bunny rabbit. Why? They were not aware of its dangerous propensities! Their Scottish guide tried to warn them before the unlucky Knights marched into certain death. He tried, but they wouldn’t listen.*

We have already discussed the issue of control as being the hook on which a landlord will/can be liable for injuries related to property. If the landlord has control over the property in question, and could have taken steps to prevent an injury because of that control, they will not be able to avoid responsibility for injuries related to dangerous conditions on that property they control. Which leads to the obvious question: What about dogs?

Well, I mean animals. Cats, Parakeets, Vicious bunnies, etc. What’s a landlord to do about these animals? Well, again, it’s all very clear. It depends on how dangerous the particular animal is, what the landlord knows, and where the animal is.

If the animal is not on property the landlord controls, there is no duty. This is in accord with our earlier control discussion. However, if the animal is a permanent guest of the landlord’s tenant, the issue is two-fold:

1. The animal’s dangerous propensity.

2. The landlord’s knowledge of the same.

Regarding the first, the question focuses on the animal’s tendencies. Is it a vicious animal, i.e. does it have known behaviors that are likely or have a tendency to cause harm? For example, dogs that bite are construed as vicious. Even dogs which are unusually large and happy, that create a fall hazard, can be construed as being dangerous.

This was the issue in a case that I litigated a long time ago. The whole issue was whether a large dog had a known propensity to greet visitors in a particular fashion which subjected the visitors to a fall risk. The plaintiff was so greeted and injured herself. The issue was prior knowledge of the propensity and whether it was dangerous. The dog owner was the defendant, but the landlord might have been liable, IF . . .

The landlord had knowledge of the tenant’s animal’s dangerous propensities. If they had no knowledge of the animals, the landlord is not likely liable. If they did know, then they may be found liable for – wait for it – not removing the animal by evicting its owner. It is the failure to use reasonable care in this regard, if it leads to injury to a third party, which attaches liability.

The Scottish guide, in the Holy Grail, who had knowledge of the bunny’s dangerous propensities, did what the law might require of a landlord in California. He warned of the animals dangerous propensities. Had the guide owned or controlled the property on which the dangerous bunny was present, he could’ve and maybe should’ve evicted that owner, and thus protected any visitors to the premises from its vicious attacks!

* After several knights were felled by the vicious bunny, the rest of the knights and King Arthur had to resort to the old reliable: Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

This blog submission is only for purposes of disseminating information. It does not constitute legal advice. The statements in this blog submission do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Robinson & Wood, Inc. or its clients. No attorney-client relationship is formed by virtue of reading this blog entry or submitting a comment thereto. If you need legal advice, please hire a licensed attorney in your state.