Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsReal_estate

Thankful for the Nudge to Read Castle Papers

February 10, 1985

As stupid as it sounds, you are 100% right--I would not have read those pages unless "a reporter's curiosity nudged" me. (Hearst Castle story, Jan. 27.)

Many, many thanks for the nudge and the article. More people than I would ever have imagined read the Times real estate section. All comments confirm the warmth and human interest that you put into the story.

I think I'll read the rest of those old papers.

WILLIAM LOORZ

President, Stolte Inc.

Bank's Role Cited We appreciated the story (Feb. 3) on our Philadelphia project which was substantially accurate and well done. I would like to have the record corrected, however, in that it was stated that Crocker Center was a joint venture of Maguire/Thomas Partners and IBM.

IBM, as you have reported in earlier stories, is a partner with Crocker Bank and Maguire/Thomas Partners in the IBM Tower in Crocker Center--not the entire project. Crocker Bank, on the other hand, has been an equal joint-venture partner with our firm since the outset of the project and has played an instrumental role with our firm in the development of Crocker Center, which we believe to be the major new landmark project in Los Angeles.

We value our relationships with both Crocker Bank and IBM very highly, but it is important that Crocker Bank's major contribution, as our partner, be properly recognized and I would appreciate that the record be corrected.

ROBERT F. MAGUIRE

Co-Managing Partner

Unlawful Detainers Let me extend my congratulations on, and appreciation of your informative and understandable Law and Real Estate column which appears in your Sunday Real Estate section. I think it does a fine job of educating the general public on real estate legal matters. And as a real estate practioner, I too have gained additional knowledge about certain aspects of the law from reading that column.

I did want to make one point of clarification on the Jan. 13 column on unlawful detainers. It is stated that a three-day notice to quit is not needed if the lease has expired; in such a case a landlord could enforce an unlawful detainer immediately.

That point is totally correct with respect to expiration of a fixed-term lease, such as a lease for a definite time period of one year. I think it should be made clearer, however, that in the common "month to month" tenancy, the law considers that to be a tenancy for an unspecified term. Such a tenancy does not terminate automatically by lapse of time, as does a fixed-term lease, but must be terminated by a notice to quit (California Civil Code Section 1946).

Again, my congratulations and keep up the excellent work.

ROBERT C. PEARMAN JR.

Burke, Robinson & Pearman

Attorneys at Law

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|