<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Lawyers USA Online &#187; real property</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/tag/real-property/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com</link>
	<description>Your Business Partner</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:39:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Contract term bars suit over latent construction defects&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/06/06/contract-term-bars-suit-over-latent-construction-defects/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/06/06/contract-term-bars-suit-over-latent-construction-defects/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2013 16:34:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[construction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[delayed discovery rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[latent defects]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statute of limitations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=93152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A contract between sophisticated parties could abrogate the delayed discovery rule regarding a lawsuit over latent construction defects, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in affirming judgment.</p> <p>The plaintiff is a hotel chain that contracted with the defendant for the design and construction of a 210-room, eight-story hotel. Eight <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/06/06/contract-term-bars-suit-over-latent-construction-defects/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/06/06/contract-term-bars-suit-over-latent-construction-defects/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Homeowners association had implied authority to regulate common area&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/16/homeowners-association-had-implied-authority-to-regulate-common-area/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/16/homeowners-association-had-implied-authority-to-regulate-common-area/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 18:02:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[homeowners association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restrictive covenants]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92792</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A homeowners association was not required to have express rulemaking authority in order to limit the types of watercraft that residents could use in an adjoining lake, the Illinois Appellate Court has ruled in affirming judgment.</p> <p>The plaintiff became a member of a homeowners association when he purchased a single-family <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/16/homeowners-association-had-implied-authority-to-regulate-common-area/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/16/homeowners-association-had-implied-authority-to-regulate-common-area/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>N.Y. high court sets real property damage standard&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/03/26/n-y-high-court-sets-real-property-damage-standard/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/03/26/n-y-high-court-sets-real-property-damage-standard/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:37:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92082</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A seller suing for a buyer’s breach of a contract to sell real property was entitled to recover the difference between the contract price and the fair market value of the property at the time of the breach, New York’s highest court has ruled.</p> <p>In 2005, the defendant entered into <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/03/26/n-y-high-court-sets-real-property-damage-standard/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/03/26/n-y-high-court-sets-real-property-damage-standard/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fraud claim must be arbitrated in real property dispute&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/02/05/fraud-claim-must-be-arbitrated-in-real-property-dispute/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/02/05/fraud-claim-must-be-arbitrated-in-real-property-dispute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 19:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=91139</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>An action for fraud was within the scope of an arbitration provision in a contract for the purchase of real property, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled in reversing judgment.</p> <p>The plaintiffs purchased a 1.5-acre parcel of undeveloped property from the defendants. The plaintiffs intended to build 27 low-income housing <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/02/05/fraud-claim-must-be-arbitrated-in-real-property-dispute/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/02/05/fraud-claim-must-be-arbitrated-in-real-property-dispute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Benchmarks: Buyer stuck with ‘murder home’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/31/benchmarks-buyer-stuck-with-murder-home/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/31/benchmarks-buyer-stuck-with-murder-home/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Dec 2012 15:48:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misrepresentation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=90284</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>In a reversal of course, a Pennsylvania court ruled last week that home sellers had no duty to disclose that their property was the scene of a grisly murder/suicide.</p> <p>“The fact that a murder once occurred in a house falls into that category of homebuyer concerns best left to <em>caveat <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/31/benchmarks-buyer-stuck-with-murder-home/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></em></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/31/benchmarks-buyer-stuck-with-murder-home/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Benchmarks: Home sellers sued for ‘lying’ about sex offender next door&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/06/benchmarks-home-sellers-sued-for-lying-about-sex-offender-next-door/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/06/benchmarks-home-sellers-sued-for-lying-about-sex-offender-next-door/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:32:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=89749</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Arizona law relieved Jeff and Marissa Currier of an affirmative obligation to disclose to prospective home buyers that they had a convicted sex offender living next door.</p> <p>But according to a state court of appeals, that didn’t mean that the Curriers couldn’t get themselves into legal trouble by allegedly lying <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/06/benchmarks-home-sellers-sued-for-lying-about-sex-offender-next-door/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/06/benchmarks-home-sellers-sued-for-lying-about-sex-offender-next-door/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Purchase could be rescinded under Land Sales Act&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/03/purchase-could-be-rescinded-under-land-sales-act/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/03/purchase-could-be-rescinded-under-land-sales-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 16:14:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rescission]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=84092</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The purchasers of a lot in an upscale real estate development had three years to exercise their rescission rights under federal law imposing disclosure requirements in interstate land sales, the 4th Circuit has ruled in affirming a $1.7 million judgment.</p> <p>The plaintiffs paid $1.7 million to purchase a lot in <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/03/purchase-could-be-rescinded-under-land-sales-act/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/05/03/purchase-could-be-rescinded-under-land-sales-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Condo purchasers may have lost rescission rights&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/02/09/condo-purchasers-may-have-lost-rescission-rights/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/02/09/condo-purchasers-may-have-lost-rescission-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:18:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[This Month's Edition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rescission]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/02/09/condo-purchasers-may-have-lost-rescission-rights/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Condominium purchasers may have waited too long to exercise their right to rescind their contract pursuant to federal law requiring certain disclosures in land sales, the 6th Circuit has ruled.</p> <p>In 2006, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement to purchase a particular unit in a condominium development. Two years later, <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/02/09/condo-purchasers-may-have-lost-rescission-rights/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/02/09/condo-purchasers-may-have-lost-rescission-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>City must have probable cause to inspect home&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/02/08/city-must-have-probable-cause-to-inspect-home/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/02/08/city-must-have-probable-cause-to-inspect-home/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:28:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fourth Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[probable cause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search and seizure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[zoning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/02/08/city-must-have-probable-cause-to-inspect-home/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A city was required to satisfy the traditional probable cause standard in order to obtain a court order for the inspection of a home for zoning violations, the Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled in reversing judgment.</p> <p>A neighbor complained to a city zoning inspector that the defendants kept junk cars <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/02/08/city-must-have-probable-cause-to-inspect-home/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/02/08/city-must-have-probable-cause-to-inspect-home/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Developers can be sued for risky home sales&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/09/23/developers-can-be-sued-for-risky-home-sales/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/09/23/developers-can-be-sued-for-risky-home-sales/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:26:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[This Month's Edition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreclosures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misrepresentation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/09/23/developers-can-be-sued-for-risky-home-sales/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Developers could be sued for allegedly injuring homeowners by causing a drop in property values through sales to individuals with a high risk of foreclosure, the 9th Circuit has ruled in reversing a dismissal.</p> <p>The plaintiffs are individual homeowners who purchased houses in new developments constructed by one of eight <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/09/23/developers-can-be-sued-for-risky-home-sales/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2011/09/23/developers-can-be-sued-for-risky-home-sales/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
