<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
    xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">

    <channel>
    
    <title>Real Estate Law</title>
    <link>http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/index.php</link>
    <description></description>
    <dc:language>en</dc:language>
    <dc:creator>scott4670@gmail.com</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights>Copyright 2007</dc:rights>
    <dc:date>2007-11-25T21:34:00-08:00</dc:date>
    <admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.expressionengine.com/" />
    

    <item>
      <title>Murphy v. Burch &#45; No easement by necessity for the owner of a landlocked parcel.</title>
     <link>http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/index.php/mcmillan/display_article/claim_of_easement_denied_for_landlocked_parcel/</link>
      <guid>http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/index.php/mcmillan/display_article/claim_of_easement_denied_for_landlocked_parcel/</guid>
      <description>The court of appeals reversed the trial court&apos;s ruling in finding that the Plaintiff did not establish claim of &quot;easement by necessity&quot; against the defendant owner of neighboring property despite the plaintiff&apos;s lack of access to a public road, where plaintiff&apos;s predecessor in interest obtained the property by patent grant from the federal government.  The patent grant from the federal government did not include any grant of an easement over the access road from that property to the nearest public road.  The only access road ran across the neighboring property owned by defendants&apos; predecessor in interest.  At no time in the past had there been any express grant of an easement from the plaintiff’s property over the defendants&apos; property to that state highway, nor had there been an acquisition of an easement by prescription in favor of the plaintiff&apos;s property, so that plaintiff&apos;s property became &quot;landlocked&quot; without any express or prescriptive easement across defendants&apos; neighboring property to the state highway.</description>
      <dc:subject></dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2007-11-25T21:34:00-08:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>Starrh and Starrh Cotton Growers v. Aera Energy LLC</title>
     <link>http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/index.php/mcmillan/display_article/recent_trespass_and_nuisance_case_relating_to_groundwater_contamination/</link>
      <guid>http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/index.php/mcmillan/display_article/recent_trespass_and_nuisance_case_relating_to_groundwater_contamination/</guid>
      <description>Real estated case demonstrating the difference between the doctrines of nuisance and continuing trespass as applied to subsurface pollutants.</description>
      <dc:subject></dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2007-09-03T22:17:00-08:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>Ruelas v. Hernandez &#45; Resulting trust vests property ownership in parents of bride.</title>
     <link>http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/index.php/mcmillan/display_article/family_members_entitled_to_resulting_trust_in_real_property_after_helping_c/</link>
      <guid>http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/index.php/mcmillan/display_article/family_members_entitled_to_resulting_trust_in_real_property_after_helping_c/</guid>
      <description>Resulting trust arose where family members purchased a condominium for couple to live in even though the female member of couple was record title holder.</description>
      <dc:subject></dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2007-08-26T20:21:00-08:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>Blackmore v. Powell: An unusual easement decision.</title>
     <link>http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/index.php/mcmillan/display_article/easement_for_garage_use_allowed_despite_exclusive_nature_of_use/</link>
      <guid>http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/index.php/mcmillan/display_article/easement_for_garage_use_allowed_despite_exclusive_nature_of_use/</guid>
      <description>Homeowner&apos;s deed granting easement &quot;for parking and garage purposes&quot; entitled the holder of the easement to construct a garage on a portion of the easement, on his neighbor&apos;s property. Nothing in the Subdivision Map Act requires that a property owner, in order to grant an easement that permits the construction of a permanent structure such as a garage, obtain local approval for the easement or record a map.</description>
      <dc:subject></dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2007-08-26T19:52:00-08:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>Patel v. Liebermensch</title>
     <link>http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/index.php/mcmillan/display_article/order_of_specific_performance_improper_on_option_contract/</link>
      <guid>http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/index.php/mcmillan/display_article/order_of_specific_performance_improper_on_option_contract/</guid>
      <description>Judgment reversed in case involving a real estate option contract.</description>
      <dc:subject></dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2007-08-26T03:48:00-08:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>Opp v. St. Paul Fire &amp; Marine Insurance rules that contractors must be licensed.</title>
     <link>http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/index.php/mcmillan/display_article/contractors_must_have_valid_licenses/</link>
      <guid>http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/index.php/mcmillan/display_article/contractors_must_have_valid_licenses/</guid>
      <description>Contractor was unable to recover according to contract or on bond where his corporation had not complied with Business and Professions code section 7031 even though the RMO had a contractor&apos;s license.</description>
      <dc:subject></dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2007-08-26T03:34:00-08:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    
    </channel>
</rss>
