Meandering about Lakefront Boundaries

If you own waterfront property, where is your property boundary, and who is your adjacent parcel owner on the waterfront?

At Lake Tahoe and many other inland (“non-tidal”) bodies of water, the boundary between the waterfront property (a/k/a the “upland” parcel) and the body of water is defined by a \ line that roughly parallels the water’s edge.  This line is called “meander line.”  In 1861 and 1875, prior to the sale of government lands around Lake Tahoe, government surveyors created a meander line along the edge of Lake Tahoe. The meander line is generally some distance landward from the water’s edge (not the actual high water mark) and was used to determine the acreage and price of the lands to be sold by the federal government to the original land patent holders.

State and federal law provide that when title to waterfront property is described by a meander line of a government survey, or by a subsequent subdivision of the same land bounded by the meander line, the title of the upland owner extends to the body of water itself.   So, just how far does the parcel extend toward the body of water?

If an inland body of water is navigable – like Lake Tahoe – the State owns the lakebed as it existed at the time of statehood (which typically means before there were dams, or artificial raising and lowering of the lake level).  In Nevada, a 1979 statute established the boundary line of the lakebed at 6,223 feet, Lake Tahoe datum, which approximates the lake’s ordinary low water level.  Accordingly, a deed conveying lakefront land on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe that uses the old government survey meander line as the boundary conveys title all the way to the lakebed at 6,223 feet.  This means your neighbor along the water’s edge is the State of Nevada.  

Similar rules apply in California. Generally, the owner of the upland, when it borders on tidal waters, takes to ordinary high-water mark; when it borders upon a navigable lake or stream, where there is no tide, the owner takes to the edge of the lake or stream, at low-water mark; when it borders upon any other water, the owner takes to the middle of the lake or stream. In Tahoe where there is no tide, the rights of the owner to low-water mark are included in the conveyance.

In California, even though a private landowner’s title extends to the ordinary low water mark, there is an easement or public trust under which the general public may recreate in the land area that lies between the ordinary low and high-water marks.  Nevada recognizes the public trust doctrine in certain instances, but does not recognize a right of the public to sunbathe or recreate in the area between low and high water. Waterfront land is usually the most valuable property in any particular market.  As you can see, there are some unique rules that apply to valuable land with waterfront boundaries.  If you have questions about your waterfront boundaries, please call Incline Law Group, LLP.

Looking out for Fido in California Divorce

In our society, dogs and other pets are viewed as beloved members of the family, with many referring to them as “fur babies” or “children”.  During a divorce proceeding, the care and custody of the family pet is often a large concern.  However, until recently, there has been no statutory guidance to tell courts how to handle this difficult issue. 

The lack of guidance essentially left individual judge’s discretion to determine how divorcing parties split a shared pet or whether to even entertain argument on the issue.  In some cases, the court would follow a property analysis, attempt to identify the person who paid for the pet’s adoption or purchase fees, and deem that person the pet’s owner. In other cases, there was no mention at all of the pet and their post-divorce fate.  Even if a court did make orders for the placement of the pet, typically no further orders were made about the requirement to provide ongoing care for the pet.

There have been extremes on both ends. In a 2002 case in Southern California, a compassionate judge ordered that parties arguing about their dog submit to bonding tests with an animal behaviorist to determine where the dog should live. On the opposite end of the spectrum, a Pennsylvania appellate court dismissed an issue regarding custody of a dog stating it was “analogous in the law, to a visitation schedule for a table or lamp”.

California, often willing to take the lead in expanding social jurisprudence, has now adopted a statute to address this issue.  California adopted Family Code Section 2605 effective January 1, 2019. Under this statute, courts can now assign sole or joint ownership of a community property pet taking into account the best interests of the pet and which party is better suited to fulfill the pet’s needs. The court can even make temporary orders regarding a pet’s care before a final judgment of dissolution is entered, which can include shared custody with time sharing arrangements between the two households. 

As California is often a “trend setter”, it will be interesting to see if more states follow by enacting legislation to address pets in divorce situations.

Attention Nevada Businesses: Changes To The Commerce Tax Filing Requirements

Attention Nevada Businesses: Changes to the Commerce Tax Filing Requirements

Our recent 2019 legislative session has resulted in a change to commerce tax filing requirements.  When the commerce tax was instituted in 2017, every business was required to file an annual return with the Department of Taxation.  Senate Bill 497 (SB 497) has removed the requirement for certain business entities from filing an annual commerce tax return with the Department of Taxation—specifically, those with a gross revenue of $4,000,000 or less no longer need to file a return. The law is effective for the 2018-2019 taxable year as well as future tax years. If the Nevada gross revenue for a business from July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019 was over $4,000,000, that business is still required to file a commerce tax return on or before August 14th, 2019. In the event that an entity’s gross revenue exceeds the $4,000,000 threshold in a future year, it is the business owner’s responsibility to file a return for the year. Failure to file may result in the assessment of penalty and interest.

California Property Tax Exemptions

The majority of people who live in or near California have heard the term Prop 13 at some time or another.  Prop 13 caps increases in property taxes if the property owner meets certain requirements.  A somewhat less known law in California is Prop 60 and Prop 90 (sometimes referred to as Prop 60/90), which amended the California Constitution.  This exemption allows a resident that is 55 or older, in certain circumstances, to sell his/her property and replace it with another while maintaining the Prop 13 tax basis on the original property.  There are many restrictions and rules to using Prop 60/90, some of which are discussed below.

To qualify for
Prop 60/90, the resident must be over the age of 55 or a severely and permanently disabled person.  Next, the replacement dwelling must be of equal or lesser value and be purchased within two years of the sale of the original property.  In most circumstances, this exemption may only be used once.

Ten counties have adopted ordinances that allow residents to take advantage of Prop 60/90 even when relocating to/from other counties.  However, if your property is not located in one of these counties the replacement property must be in the same county as the original property. There are other requirements that must be met under Prop 60/90 but this law can be a great way for someone to relocate while maintaining their property tax basis.  This allows for mobility of many seasoned Californians looking to downsize.  If you would like to learn more about this property tax exemption and whether you qualify, do not hesitate to contact our office.

New California Homeowners’ Insurance Requirement

New California law mandates additional homeowners’ insurance requirement. In response to the massive destruction caused by numerous California wildfires over the past several years, California is taking steps to enact laws that seek to fund wildfire prevention and protect consumers impacted by wildfires. One of the biggest issues that homeowners’ who lost their homes are facing, is the unfortunate discovery that they are underinsured. Outdated or inaccurate replacement cost estimates are often the cause of the problem. For homeowners with replacement cost coverage, a new law, which goes into effect January 1, 2019 will require insurers to provide, every other year before policy renewal time, an estimate of the cost to rebuild or replace the home in a way that complies with existing insurance regulations. The new law is aimed at improving the information available to policyholders so they can make informed decisions about how much coverage to buy. The law goes into effect July 1, 2019, and has several exceptions. See Ins C §10103.4 (added by Stats 2018, ch 205).

No matter where you live, it is always advisable to review your insurance with your insurance broker regularly. Insurance is one of those products that we consider to be a key piece of your asset protection plan. We know that buying insurance is not a particularly sexy or gratifying purchase, but if you ever need it, you will be glad you did.

Real Property Disputes: Local or Transitory?

Real Property Disputes: Local or Transitory?  Where do we go from here?

In the law, some cases are considered “local” actions, while others are described as “transitory.”  What does that mean? Essentially, some cases must be decided only in a court of the one particular state that is connected to the subject of the case. Those are called “local actions.”

On the other hand, most lawsuits are “transitory” and can be litigated in any state that has jurisdiction over the parties, based on their residence or presence in the state.  Sometimes several states might be potential venues for a transitory action, and the litigants may engage in “forum-shopping” because they prefer the laws of one state over another.  When multiple states might be the venue of a transitory action, there are rules to help rank which state is a better venue than others.  Typical examples of transitory actions are contract disputes, injury claims, and class-actions.

Quiet title actions, probate of real property and judicial foreclosure actions are all examples of “local actions” involving real estate that must be heard in the state in which the property is located.

We recently handled a case from California that addressed issues arising from both local and transitory actions.  A trust estate was being litigated in California, but the estate included property located in Nevada.  In that instance, the court – applying long-established exceptions to the local action rule – entered orders determining the parties’ respective interests in real estate located in Nevada.  The Nevada Supreme Court recently upheld the entry of the California probate court’s order that the defendant “trustee” had no interest in the Nevada lands she had conveyed to herself.  The ruling was based on the fact that the California probate court had proper jurisdiction over the trust and the parties who were all of its trustees and beneficiaries.

The same exception to the local action rule applies in a variety of other settings, the most common of which are divorce proceedings.  In a divorce, a court in State “A” can divvy up property of the spouses located in State “B” and any other states.  The Court’s power to do this stems from its jurisdiction over the owners – the divorcing spouses.  Likewise, in a partnership dispute or dissolution, if the court has jurisdiction over the partners or the partnership, it can divvy up their real estate, no matter where it is located, and the courts where the land is located must give effect to the decree partnership dissolution (or the divorce decree) which divides the land.

Cases involving a mixture of local and transitory actions can be complicated.  Incline Law Group, LLP has the experience to guide you through the process.

5 Common Individual Bankruptcy Myths

Facts v Myths BankruptcyBelow are five of the most common reasons people give for reasons as to why they think they have to avoid filing bankruptcy when their lives are in financial turmoil.

People in financial distress commonly will delay or not seek relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code, due to common myths and misperceptions.  As a result, such persons and their families continue to suffer needlessly, and in many cases, make their situation worse by delaying or not filing bankruptcy.

1. I am married, and so my spouse has to file bankruptcy with me. 

False.  In many cases, it may make sense for both spouses of the marriage to file bankruptcy jointly, but there is no legal requirement that you have to do so.  In fact, there are situations where it may make more sense for only one spouse to file bankruptcy, such as when all of the debt or a vast majority of the debt is in one spouse’s name only.

2. A bankruptcy filing will stay on my credit report forever.

False.  Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, credit reporting agencies may not report a bankruptcy case on a person’s credit report after 10 years from the date the bankruptcy case is filed.  A Chapter 13 bankruptcy case may be removed from reporting on your credit reports after seven years, according to the policies of the members of the Associated Credit Bureaus, as an effort by them to persuade individuals to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy rather than a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

 

3. I will not be able to obtain credit after filing bankruptcy.

False.  Many debtors start receiving credit offers very shortly after they received their bankruptcy discharge of debts. This includes credit cards and auto loans. Initially, the terms of the loans or credit may result in a higher than the average interest rate, lower credit limit, or other less than favorable terms; but assuming his or her credit is maintained, a debtor discharged in bankruptcy can return to receiving more commercially reasonable credit terms, including housing loans after a few years.

4. My tax debts to the IRS can never be discharged in bankruptcy.  

False.  While generally speaking, tax liabilities cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, under certain circumstances, older personal income taxes that have not been paid for a period of time after filing an income tax return can be discharged.  Otherwise, tax liabilities can be paid in full under a Chapter 13 repayment plan, over a period of time of up to 60 months.

5. You lose everything if you file a personal Chapter7 bankruptcy.

False.  A Chapter 7 bankruptcy is referred to as a bankruptcy liquidation, which can result in certain assets of a debtor having to be turned over and liquidated in the bankruptcy.  However, certain assets are exempt from bankruptcy proceedings and allowed to be retained by the debtor.  For example, individual retirement accounts and certain qualified retirement plans that have a value of $500,000or less are exempt for each debtor in Nevada.  Equity in a debtor’s primary residence can be exempt up to $550,000 in Nevada.  Nevada also allows each debtor to retain a vehicle with equity value equal to or less than$15,000 and household furniture equal to or less than $12,000.  Such valuations are determined by the current fair market value of the asset, namely, the reasonable market price that a debtor could obtain for the asset if the debtor were to sell it.  Nevada law also allows for other exemptions to protect certain other assets from bankruptcy.

Instead of doing nothing or needlessly delaying and making matters worse for themselves, people with acute financial problems should not hesitate to contact a bankruptcy attorney to ask questions and explore options available to them both in and outside of bankruptcy. An informed bankruptcy lawyer can be an excellent tool to assist one in navigating the turbulent waters during times of financial distress and confusion.

Residential Leases – What is Missing from your Lease Agreement

What’s missing from the residential lease you drafted?

DIY Leases

As we near the end of the summer, the housing market is hot.  The rental market is even hotter.  Landlords are seizing opportunities to rent their property due to the shortage of rental units in our area.  We often see landlords and tenant entering into written leases that were either drafted by a non-lawyer or downloaded off of the internet (we often refer to these as the DIY (Do It Yourself) Lease). These leases are often missing key terms which make it very difficult for either party to enforce the terms of the lease.   NRS 118A.200 sets forth a number of provisions and clauses that must be contained in a residential lease agreement, otherwise, the lease is considered unlawful.  For example, one provision that is often omitted from a DIY lease is that a tenant has the right to display the flag of the United States. While this may seem obvious or unnecessary to include for some landlords, failure to do so violates NRS 118A.200.

Bear Box (Bear Proof Trash Container)

NRS Lease Provisions

Even if a lease includes the provisions as required by NRS 118A.200, many leases we see are contractually deficient and can expose the landlord to liability.  We often see leases that do not contain terms that related to local and property specific factors.  For example, in the Lake Tahoe area, securing trash in bear-proof containers is a great concern due to the wildlife that lives here.  Failure to properly secure trash can lead to severe fines against the property owner as well as bears being deemed a nuisance and subsequently euthanized.  Any lease in the Lake Tahoe area should include specific provisions relating to wildlife and trash so that it is clear that the tenant is responsible for securing trash and will be held accountable for the tenant’s failure to adequately do so.  This is just one of many location-specific examples in the Lake Tahoe area but it should be noted that almost every geographic location in Nevada and California has specific issues that should be addressed in the lease.

Having an attorney draft, or at least review, your lease is relatively inexpensive and is certainly less expensive than attempting to enforce an unlawful or invalid lease.  If you would like us to take a look at your lease or draft one for your rental property, do not hesitate to contact us.

Residency Requirements for Divorce in California & Nevada

As a family law attorney, I am often asked about the residency requirements in Nevada v  California.

Pursuant to NRS 125.020, in order to file for divorce in Nevada, one of the parties must be a resident of the state of Nevada for 6 weeks preceding the filing of the Complaint for Divorce.  Such residency must be corroborated by an Affidavit of Residency signed by an individual, also a resident of the State of Nevada, who can confirm that a party to the action has been continuously physically present in the state during that period of time.

In California, the residency requirements are longer.  Pursuant to California Family Code Section 2320 one of the parties must be a resident of the State of California for a period of six months before a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage can be filed. Furthermore, California also has a separate county residency requirement of three months. If a party has not yet met the residency requirements in California, he or she can still file a Petition for Legal Separation prior to meeting the required term of residency and then later convert the Petition to a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage once the residency requirements have been met. The court would then be empowered to make temporary custody and support orders similar to those made in a Dissolution case while the party is waiting to obtain residency.

In addition to the residency requirements for filing of actions, both states also have  adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”) which only allows a court to make a child custody determination if the child or children have resided in that state for a period of six months and there is no other state which has jurisdiction over the child. There are some statutory exceptions for emergency situations, but in most cases, the courts will have to defer to the child’s “home state” if there are two or more states which are seeking jurisdiction to make a custody order.  Accordingly, even if an individual satisfies the residency requirements for obtaining a divorce or dissolution, there could still be issues as to whether that state has proper jurisdiction to enter a child custody order

Finally, unlike Nevada which does not have a statutory “waiting period”, California courts cannot issue a Judgment of Dissolution until an additional six months have expired from the date the Respondent was served with the dissolution petition or otherwise acknowledged service. This is to acknowledge the public policy to promote marriage and make sure spouses are given adequate time to consider their decision to proceed with the dissolution of their marriage.

Nevada Series Limited Liability Companies (LLCs)

As discussed in my prior post on asset protection, at Incline Law Group we are always looking for ways to protect our clients’ assets by achieving two goals 1) separating business assets from personal ownership and 2) separating business assets from each other by avoiding common ownership. There are many ways to do this and the best way depends on the type of assets, the risk level associated with your assets, financing issues, personal preference, taxes and many other factors.

For real estate investment, such as ownership of a number of income properties, a Nevada Series Limited Liability Companies can be a really great entity structure to maximize asset protection and minimize administrative costs. Series LLCs are not for everyone, so carefully analyzing the benefits to your business assets with your attorney and CPA is extremely important.

A Series LLC looks similar to a parent company/subsidiary sort of structure. A master company is filed with the Nevada Series LLCSecretary of State, like any other LLC, but with an election to be a Series LLC. The creation of any number of series companies is authorized in the Series LLC governing documents.  When a new series company is needed, it can be formed internally and is not registered with the Secretary of State, thus minimizing filing fees. While each series company may have its own tax ID number, a single tax return may be filed which can maximize tax benefits of profit and loss sharing across the series companies.

This type of entity structure can be a great fit for real estate holdings. For example, if I own 5 rental properties, I can put each property into a series company.  I am able to save licensing and filing fees, as well as potentially file a single tax return, but at the same time, each of those series companies is treated as a distinct and separate LLC (so long as I follow all applicable statutory,  financial and governance rules). Therefore, I have achieved a great deal of asset protection while minimizing costs.

Again, Series LLCs are not for everyone. They do require extra TLC when it comes to banking, financials and bookkeeping. They also have limited application if your assets are located in another state, such as California. But if, after careful investigation, it looks like a Series LLC may fit your needs, it is a structure that can be a fantastic tool for asset protection.

 

Call Now Button