Highlights of the 24th Annual Advanced Real Estate Seminar 2020 (On Demand Seminar)

This presentation will examine socioeconomic aspects of zoning.  It will provide a historical legal context and then also explore current uses of land use law to advance socioeconomic goals. This topic is especially timely given trends across various states to address contemporary socioeconomic dilemmas through land use planning.

Imagine almost finishing a conversion of a historic downtown property into a mixed-use complex, and being sued because the kitchens in all the luxury apartments need to be changed to meet the Fair Housing Act.  Or years later the hotel component is sued several years after the warranties ended, where there are dozens of accessibility errors or omissions by both the architect and contractor, but the indemnification clauses are void against public policy. This session will address the most common issues and strategies Real Estate lawyers should be using to reduce risk, regardless of whom they represent.

Learn how VHDA offers innovative housing solutions with incentive systems for efficient development.  Hear from in-house counsel about the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program (“LIHTC”).  Hear from a developer bringing award-winning and varied projects in historic districts on a large and small scale.  What works and what is still tricky?

You’ve made the decision to either join another firm or strike out on your own. Though you have planned the move itself, have you thought about—and laid out—the ethical obligations of changing firms?  In this session we will address the rules surrounding issues that may arise when changing firms such as conflicts of interest, communications with clients of the firm, clients’ right of access to information, how to allocate fees between the old and the new firm, and, finally, how the new firm checks for conflicts of interests.   

This session will cover the implications of the following rules: Conflicts for Lawyers Serving on Non-Profit Boards with Real Estate Interests (HOAS) (implicating Rules 1.6, 1.10, and 1.7); Threats in Negotiations (implicating Rule 3.4 and LEO 1582); and Gifts and Referrals and Co-Ownership (implicating RESPA,  Rule 1.7, LEO 1398, 1436 and 1681).

On the regulatory takings front, what changed with Knick v. Scott Township, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019)?  Hear from U.S. Supreme Court litigator Gus Bauman, part of the original legal team in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985).  Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the 5-4 majority in Knick, stated that “Takings claims against local governments should be handled the same as other claims under the Bill of Rights. Williamson County erred in holding otherwise.” 

Following the 400th anniversary of the involuntary arrival of African Americans to Virginia, learn how Virginians have been affected by involuntary judicial sales and processes. As reported by the ABA: “In 2010, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) promulgated the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act (UPHPA) …. The act was drafted to stabilize tenancy-in-common ownership for disadvantaged families because for many decades state partition laws have contributed to widespread and devastating involuntary land loss among families who owned tenancy-in-common properties.”  Learn about the history of African American land dispossession, the proposed UPHPA in Virginia, and re-examine partition concepts involving standing, allotment, and judicial sale parameters.