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

From time to time, a property owner or possessor will give permission to others to use or rent out parts of her property and put things on it. A soda machine, a vending machine, a gas line, or even a pipe trestle. Those who use that land in this manner have a duty of care to third parties to prevent injury. The same duty that the possessor has.

Here is a fun fact pattern. The land possessor runs a horse farm. He rents out horses to be ridden on the property. A customer asks for a mild horse. The land possessor gives the customer what he believes to be a mild horse. The customer takes said horse out for a ride. Said horse is not mild. Said horse goes where it wants to go and takes the customer along with him. Injury ensues:

“Plaintiff and his wife rode under the trestle along the indicated road, with plaintiff’s horse in the lead. After proceeding about 400 feet to the north at a walk, plaintiff turned his head to the left and called to his wife. As he made this movement, plaintiff’s horse suddenly reeled about to the left and began racing back on the road toward the trestle, gaining speed as it went. Plaintiff attempted in vain to control or stop the horse by pulling back on the reins as hard as he could with both hands, but the horse kept going faster, passed plaintiff’s wife and ran around the bend in the road toward the trestle. Immediately before the accident and at a distance of some 8 to 10 feet from the trestle, plaintiff noticed some underhanging beams stretching over the traveled area at a height of about 6 feet. Plaintiff was then lying flat in the saddle, with his head held down as far to the right as he could get it and his left shoulder pointing upwards. His left shoulder and neck hit a stationary object such as the understructure of the pipe trestle, and plaintiff blacked out. When he regained consciousness he was lying immediately to the south of the pipe trestle, approximately 5 feet from the nearest substructure of the trestle and immediately south of the traveled area under the trestle. As a result of the accident, plaintiff is permanently paralyzed from the waist down.”*

Not what the customer asked for or intended. Setting aside the interesting discussion of the owner’s responsibilities regarding knowledge of his horses in making recommendations (i.e., knowledge of the propensities), there is a holding in here that helps landlords defend against property-related lawsuits.

The parties installing that pipe trestle were defendants to the case as well, owing the injured plaintiff the same duty of care regarding that pipe trestle as the possessor. It turned out that there was no duty — again, due to the no-longer-applicable classifications. But the principle will help the landlord identify the culpable party in any such lawsuit.

*Palmquist v. Mercer, 43 Cal. 2d 92, 97 (1954)

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

“The childish propensity to intermeddle was the characteristic which the [property possessor] should have taken reasonable precautions to guard against.”* Sometimes the courts come up with lyrical gems that get right to the heart of the matter. Through pages and pages of drivel, more often than not there is one pithy sentence which sums up the whole case and rule. I often wonder why the esteemed appellate justices do not just give us the facts of the case and the one pithy sentence. The books would be a lot smaller and cases a lot clearer.**

The above quote comes from a case which held both a tenant and the janitor the tenant retained liable for personal injuries to a three-year-old. The proof was that the tenant was in charge of a school. The tenant also, in the same building, housed families. (It was a hotel, and the tenant was the United States Navy). The tenant retained a janitorial service to clean said school on the weekends. Said janitorial service did so. Sometimes, they would stack the furniture — desks and chairs — in a pile. (To make cleaning the floor easier?) One weekend, a child was present in the school. Not a stretch, considering the building also contained living quarters. He climbed up on the furniture pile and promptly fell out the window. From the fourth floor.

The case had a lot to do with outdated and inapplicable classifications of the child — whether his activity of playing on the furniture made him a “trespasser.” But the case did have confirmation of the agency liability principle, which should help exonerate the tenant for a good deal of liability for the injuries this contractor arguably caused. Here it is: “One who carries on an activity on land on behalf of the owners in possession is subject to the same liability and enjoys the same immunity from liability, for bodily harm caused thereby to others as though he were said owner.”***  Translation: the folks hired to do work on the property are not immune from liability because the owner hired them. They are liable. If they are insolvent, or cannot be located, then maybe the owner will assume their liability. If the owner also had control over the activity (arguably always?), they may have some independent percentage of fault.

*Roberts v. Del Monte Properties Co., 111 Cal. App. 2d 69, 74, 77 (1952)

**And the lawyers less numerous?

***This quote is not as pithy as the one that opened this post, but it is arguably as important.

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 let’s talk American Horror Story and the liability of prior owners for dangerous conditions. Our favorite fun subjects, right? Before things got too silly, there’s an episode where [spoiler alert] somebody dies and gets buried under the gazebo. This being a horror show, the victim is not content stay under the gazebo. Said victim gets out and causes all sorts of mayhem, including injuries and some pretty serious property damage. Would you stop throwing stuff around? If you, dear reader, saw a great investment opportunity in this property and bought it nonetheless, would you be liable for this victim’s subsequent mayhem on your tenants?

OK, well, let’s put it in slightly more realistic terms. Let’s say you build a nice fish pond in your back yard, because you like Japanese carp. You get that promotion and transfer across the country and away you go.  You sell the property to Mrs. Investor, who is most definitely going to rent it out. She does, and the new family moves in and their toddler drowns in the pond. Are you, dear reader — seller — liable for that wrongful death claim? Come on — you know the answer. What were we discussing all last year?

Control. Once you sell the property, do you have the ability to go back in and warn the new tenant about the pond? Can you remove it? You think the new owner would like you going on the property with some bulldozers on the grounds that you want to make it safe for her new tenants? I didn’t think so. Congrats — you readers and California law are in accord!  The California Supreme Court in Preston v. Goldman said there was no liability. The main issue was, as usual, control. The seller, even though he installed the pond, had no right to control the danger related to it once he sold it. He could not remove the pond, fence it off, warn about it, or control who came onto the property.

The situation might be different if this were some kind of special, hidden carp pond that you, dear reader, forgot to disclose to the purchaser. Or if you installed a garden cover that was camouflaged and did not tell the owner how to access it, or some other hidden danger that led to the death. Then you might be liable if the buyer would not discover it under most circumstances, i.e., if the seller could discover the hidden carp pond with a reasonable inspection, you would be off the hook.

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 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 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 Linda Day Harrison, theBrokerList, Chicago, IL

Absolutely! Why, you ask? It’s not a bunch of boring legal stuff that is neither cool nor sexy. Heck, it’s not even about marketing, technology, social media, or anything current or trending, as they say. Or is it?

I think it’s very cutting edge to act ethically, and above all, with the highest respect for your employer, clients, and customers. It’s not an easy track to maintain with all of the examples we see and hear about every day. Other people did it, so why not me? So-and-so was able to do this and they got away with it. Why should I walk the straight line? If they don’t know it, it won’t hurt them. Hey, I can e-mail documents, take files, and share information about my properties or clients freely! What’s the big deal?

Today more than ever, the world is becoming more and more transparent. Documents, information, and actions move so fast. You can’t hide, run away, or conceal your actions. There is e-mail, tweets, LinkedIn, and many other virtual business networks where your trail of activity exists. Use extreme caution. Ignorance is not bliss when it comes to this vital aspect in our roles as property managers, leasing agents, or company executives.

No matter what segment of the real estate industry you’re in, finance, marketing, management, operations, facilities, et cetera all require an intimate knowledge of ethics and how ethics work. Many of us belong to organizations such as IREM, NARPM, BOMI, REALTOR, CCIM, SIOR, and scores of affiliations that all carry a code of ethics to which you must adhere. If you don’t adhere to these codes, you may be sanctioned.

The timing of this topic is speaking to me as I teach an online BOMI International course, Fundamentals of Real Property Operations.  Chapter 1 is, you guessed it, Ethics! Just today I received a tremendous and timely report of Real Life Ethics Cases from IREM, which is a powerful document that should be required reading for all employees at every single real estate firm, whether it be leasing, property management, or brokerage companies.

If you do not have this IREM Real Life Ethics Cases document, it’s strongly suggested that you obtain it and distribute it for your entire staff to read. Additionally, study your favorite organizations’ codes of ethics and use them as a road map to create one for your company. Today with the advent of virtual networking and conversations moving at the speed of light, it is surely cutting edge to consider the impact of your communication and online interactions, and how they may or may not cross the line of ethics.

Here are some excellent examples to give you a good start on how the various facets of our industry address their respective member code of ethics:

IREM Code of Ethics
NARPM Code of Ethics
BOMI International Code of Ethics
SIOR Global Code of Ethics
CCIM Code of Ethics
REALTOR Code of Ethics

Host meetings or brown bag lunches to talk about what is acceptable within your company code of ethics and what is not acceptable. Make your statements clear and connect the dots to real-life examples of what can happen. Role playing can be fun and create bonds with your teams when working with this subject matter.

Again, I repeat, the study of ethics is truly cutting edge, and I believe it will start to take the front seat and be a hand-in-glove solution to many of our corporate policies as they relate to social media. I told you ethics was cutting edge! I am not steering you wrong!

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.