Legal Opinion

Richman v. Hartley

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 20, 2014No. B245052PublishedCited by 44 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

O’DONNELL, J. *

In a sale of real property improved with one to four dwelling units, the seller is required to deliver to the buyer a real estate transfer disclosure statement (TDS) pursuant to the Transfer Disclosure Law. (Civ. Code, § 1102 et seq.) In this case the seller did not provide a TDS because the property is “mixed-use,” i.e., improved with both residential and commercial buildings. We conclude that a TDS is required in any transfer of real property “improved with or consisting of not less than one nor more than four dwelling units,” even if the property also has commercial…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1990
  3. People Ex Rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co.California Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Romano v. Rockwell International, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by44 opinions

  1. Alki Partners, LP v. DB Fund Services, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  2. Jazz Pharm., Inc. v. Synchrony Grp., LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2018
  3. Copenbarger v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism, Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  4. Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC v. Fireman's Fund InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  5. Remington v. IversonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2025

39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API