1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90067

(310) 201-0010

Stacie Feldman Hausner, Esq.

Real Estate & Construction Defect

Representative Cases

  • Case in which buyer purchased a property to develop into condominiums subject to seller obtaining city approval of the project. Two and a half years later, buyer wants rescission of the purchase agreement because none of the plans have been approved.


  • Four siblings involved in a dispute regarding the division of three properties soon to be inherited from their elderly parents and held in trust in individual sibling’s names.


  • Landlord-tenant dispute in which tenant sought damages for remediation of mold and reconstruction of a storage facility and garage in a long-term residential tenancy.


  • HOA case in which a homeowner had unknowingly bough a townhome with an unlicensed storage facility built atop a common area. This facility had been there for 20 plus years with the HOA’s knowledge, yet no prior complaint.


  • Investor invested in the development of income producing property. The developer who had sought her investment transferred the property, prior to development, to a different entity for the infusion of capital from the sale of a different property, thereby diluting investor’s interest. Investor alleged violation of the operating agreement.


  • A borrower transferred property to plaintiff  who paid the borrower’s mortgage for several years without assuming a transfer of the mortgage to plaintiff’s name, without paying off the mortgage, and without receiving at third party authorization from the borrower. When the plaintiff wanted to sell the property, the mortgage company refused to release the payoff amount (necessary for the sale) because plaintiff’s name was not on the mortgage, it is an alleged violation of borrower’s privacy rights, and the borrower refused to give authorization to release the payoff information. As a result, the sale on the property fell through and the plaintiff alleged resulting damages.


  • Dispute between neighbors and a developer who wanted to construct apartment buildings and was limited by a 1946 restrictive deed that limits development to duplexes and single family residences.


  • Dispute arising from a contractor’s alleged negligent construction of a new swimming pool and deck in the backyard of landowner. It also involved significant insurance coverage issues under a CGL policy.


  • Tenants sued landlord for retaliation when landlord served a rent increase and then a 60 Day Notice within a few weeks of tenants calling the Health Department regarding habitability issues in the unit, including sewage backups.


  • Multi-party dispute involving water leakage from the roof into 4 units. Unit owners sued the roofer, owner in unit above, owner in charge of the roof deck, and the Homeowners Association.


  • HOA case in which a homeowner had unknowingly bought a townhome with an unlicensed storage facility built atop a common area. This facility had been there for 20 plus years with the HOA’s knowledge yet no complaint.


  • A dispute arising out of a commercial grant of utility easement by previous owners of both commercial properties. One side argued there was a violation of the easement in a new construction project while the other side argued that the easement allowed for the construction. The dispute involved significant insurance coverage issues.


  • Dispute in which the tenants sued their landlord for personal injury damages and lack of habitability due to pervasive toxic mold during the tenancy.


  • Dispute in which a commercial tenant sued the its landlord developer for interference with business relations when its landlord developer engaged in a neighboring very large development project that restricted the tenant’s ability to physically access its business.


  • Dispute in which the tenant and landlord sued one another due to the condition of a large beach-front Malibu property during the tenancy and upon return of the property to the landlord.


  • Dispute involving the division of a joint tenancy property in which the property was held in an LLC, and one of the joint tenants had newly inherited the property after the passing of his father and multiple renovations by the other joint tenant.


  • Dispute involving damages incurred to personal property when a metal rod was stuck deep in the ground during a water well project in which the driller passed away prior to the completion of the project. There were many CGL coverage issues involved in the dispute.


  • Dispute involving the alleged intentional fire in a condominium complex that damaged the property of the other residents. Insurance subrogation, homeowners association and coverage issues were involved in the case.


  • Dispute involving a commercial lease in which the tenants built out the space to convert into a restaurant and when returning the property, they had removed the kitchen and other built-ins without landlord approval and knowledge.


  • Dispute between a landlord and tenant for a commercial space when the work done to the property was done by an unlicensed contractor, which allegedly devalued the purchase price of the property.


  • Plaintiff contractor sued defendant contractor for breach of contract regarding profit sharing arrangement on a public works project.


  • Dispute in which plaintiff home purchaser sued defendant seller and real estate agent for failure to disclose flooding.


  • Dispute in which defendant’s alleged water and pipe damage in his medical office caused extensive water damage to a tenant renting medical office space on a lower floor.


  • Breach of residential lease case and habitability case due to construction at a beachfront expensive residential property.


  • Breach of commercial lease and interference with business due to owner’s development of an adjacent property and the impact of that development on the leased property.


  • Dispute involving a commercial lease and issues surrounding construction done by the tenant during the terms of the lease and the condition of the property when the tenant vacated.


  • Dispute involving the issue as to whether the exchange in ownership interest of a piece of commercial property should be characterized as either a sale for a section 1031 property exchange or a loan at a 6% rate secured by the commercial property. The minimal written agreement referenced the property as a “sale,” but the transaction was structured as a loan and extrinsic evidence referred to the transaction as a loan. The characterization of the property transfer had implications on whether plaintiff or defendant/cross-complainant was owed money due to the fact that the subsequent sale of the commercial property was at a significantly smaller purchase price than the initial transfer of the property.


  • Dispute involving a commercial real estate lease that contained an exclusivity provision negotiated by a doctor tenant. Doctor tenant argued that, pursuant to the negotiated exclusivity provision in the lease, the landlord could not lease space on the ground floor to an urgent care facility. He alleged significant damages based upon the interference it would have with his medical practice.


  • A commercial lease dispute with tort and breach of lease claims. The dispute resolved with a six-figure settlement and an agreement for the leasing party to move to another one of the landlord’s property for no rent.


  • Dispute in which tenants sued their landlord for return of security deposit, ADA discrimination on basis of refusal to allow for an emotional support animal, fraud in the lease, and bad faith.


  • Dispute involving the sale of a house in Santa Monica canyon by the bank. Prior owner of the house sued the buyers alleging that it involved a fraudulent sale without proper notice. The plaintiff alleged more than $1 million in damages.


  • Dispute involving the issue of whether an easement should be granted, and for what price, to a land-locked property in Topanga Canyon from a non-profit organization owning adjacent property. The non-profit organization was designed to preserve the natural habitat in the canyon and they were concerned with the use, sub-division and building of structures on the property.


  • Property line dispute in which plaintiff sued neighbor defendants for removing expensive and mature trees from plaintiff’s property and subsequently building a wall on plaintiff’s property. Defendants claimed that they were remodeling their house and that the removal was accidental because they believed that the trees and wall were on defendants’ property.


  • Property line dispute involving neighboring property owners in Mandeville Canyon. Plaintiff sued defendants alleging that defendants owed plaintiff money for improperly using plaintiff’s property for a garage, parking, pool equipment and fountain equipment.


  • Dispute involving the breach of a commercial lease. Plaintiff pharmacy sued the landlord for breach of a commercial lease when the landlord allegedly failed to properly prepare the leased space in order to meet the stringent guidelines required by the pharmacy licensing board. The landlord counter-claimed for breach of the commercial lease, given that plaintiff never moved into the property.


  • Claimant sued HOA and property manager for FHA, FEHA, Unruh Act and Bane act violations due to sexual harassment by the property manager of her condominium complex. She also sued for retaliation after she complained.


  • Real Estate Broker and Brokerage Firm sued one another regarding commissions after date of termination, defamation, and insurance reserves.


  • Purchaser of a town house sued the seller for failure to disclose a flood event.


  • Multi-party dispute involving a wrongful foreclosure action and the subsequent wrongful purchase of property.


  • Commercial landlord sued his tenant, a martial arts studio, for breach of contract when the studio failed to make timely and complete lease payments due to a loss of funding from an investor.


  • A homeowner of a condominium sued his Homeowners Association and another homeowner, for the extensive damage that resulted when water dripped through the roof of their unit. The Homeowners Association also sued the homeowner in a declaratory relief action for a violation of its rules and procedures.


  • Dispute involving the alleged breach of a commercial lease agreement in Beverly Hills. Landlord sued tenant alleging that she breached the commercial lease by vacating the premises a few years early. Tenant alleged that she had to leave early because she detrimentally relied upon misrepresentations about square footage size, causing her to not have enough useable space to run her retail business. Landlord also sued real estate brokers for interference with business relations and breach of fiduciary duty because they found the tenant a new space during the terms of the lease.


  • Right of view case in which a neighbor sued another neighbor because the neighbor’s trees and hedges blocked the other neighbor’s ocean view.


  • Property line dispute in which one neighbor sued another for alleged encroachments caused by one of the neighbor’s fences and its underground footings.


  • Dispute in which a tenant sued his landlord for wrongful eviction from a rent-controlled apartment in Venice. The tenant alleged that the landlord wrongfully evicted him so that he could improperly convert the property to commercial use only, which is not subject to rent-control restrictions. The tenant sued for $1 million in damages.


  • Dispute between sibling property owners regarding two income properties, managed by one sibling, and left to both siblings in the estate of their mother. Dispute involved whether to sell each of the properties, and if so, at what value and pursuant to what valuation process.


  • Dispute between numerous family members regarding undistributed proceeds from the sale of real property transferred equally to them upon the death of parent property owners. One family member argued that he should be reimbursed for the money he spent on lawyer fees and improvements to the property made for the purposes of sale prior to the equal distribution of sale proceeds.


  • Tenant sued her landlord for the return of her security deposit and the value of her lost belongings. She alleged that, in response to complaints about the habitability of the premises, the landlord wrongfully served her with a 60 day notice to vacate and then, prior to the expiration of the notice period, the landlord locked her out of the premises, refusing to allow her to recover her belongings.


  • Tenant sued her landlord for wrongful eviction and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She alleged that, in response to her complaints about the habitability of her apartment, her landlord wrongfully evicted her after entering her apartment, without permission and the 24 hour notice provided for in the lease, to find her naked. The landlord counter-claimed for a breach of lease that he alleged had occurred because the tenant had been sub-letting rooms in the apartment in violation of the written lease.


  • Tenant sued her landlord for the return of her security deposit, when prior to moving into a leased mansion in Beverly Hills, she chose not to move in after learning that one of the guest houses was not permitted for habitability and that there was asbestos in a room in the main house. The landlord counterclaimed for breach of lease.


  • Dispute involving a tenant who sued for the return of his secured parking spot, or a substantial reduction of the rent, when the landlord took his secured parking spot away in a rent-controlled apartment, where tenant had lived for 15 years. The tenant alleged that the landlord knew the importance of the parking spot to the tenant and that he denied him of this spot solely so that the tenant would have to move, thereby allowing the landlord to rent the apartment to another tenant without rent control restrictions.


  • Dispute in which the tenants alleged that the landlord erroneously refused to pay for emergency plumbing repairs.


  • Dispute in which tenant sued landlord for rent paid over a 4 year tenancy, alleging that defendant illegally collected rent because she was living in an unpermitted guest house.


  • Dispute in which plaintiff sued to remove ex-husband defendant’s name from the title to real property that was transferred to her and her then husband through her mother’s will. Defendant had a loan on the property in his name.


  • Dispute alleging treble damages and $50,000 in attorneys fees in a case involving alleged bad faith refusal to return a large security deposit.


  • Numerous habitability disputes involving claims by tenants relating to various defective conditions, including vermin, insect infestation, noisiness and improperly working electricity and plumbing.


  • Numerous disputes involving the lease of residential property in which tenants fail to pay rent due to loss of job, imprisonment, domestic partnership separations and/or relocation. Issues typically involved whether the landlord properly mitigated damages, whether the withholding of a security deposit return was proper, and the arrangement of payment plans when money is admittedly owed on a lease.


  • Dispute in which a homeowner sued the Homeowners Association for flooding in her unit allegedly caused by a ruptured sewage pipe.


  • Multi-party dispute in which a homeowner sued the Homeowners Association and overhead unit owner for flooding occurring in his unit.


  • Multi-party dispute in which a homeowner sued the HOA and overhead unit owner for damage caused to his unit from water dripping from the balcony of the overhead unit.


  • Multi-party construction defect dispute in which the owner of a property claims that the construction of the atrium and it’s attachment to the house caused flooding in the house. The homeowner sued the roofing contractor and general contractor for breach of express warranty for the allegedly inadequate installation of and subsequent repairs made to the roof. The homeowner sought damages for the replacement of the roof, costs for years of repairs, and the resultant water damage to his interior property. Statute of limitations issues existed, as well as issues regarding whether the language of the warranty and the pleadings allowed for the recovery of resultant damages.



  • Construction defect dispute in which a homeowner sued her pool surfacing and maintenance company for breach of express warranty, implied warranty and negligence, alleging that the pool surface needed to be replaced due to faulty surfacing and maintenance of the pH balance in the pool water.



  • Construction defect dispute in which the homeowner sued defendant home entertainment and alarm company for inadequate installation and repair of the system, leading to the alleged loss in value and enjoyment of the property.


  • Construction defect dispute in which homeowners sued roofing company for water damage to the interior of the house after heavy rains.