Real Estate Blog - Tracy, Ca

I have to talk about something I think is not in the news enough, the online poker. Here is some backround infomation from wikipedia:

In September 2006, just before adjourning for the midterm elections, both the House of Representatives and Senate passed legislation (as an amendment to the unrelated Safe Port Act) that would make transactions from banks or similar institutions to online gambling sites illegal. This differs from a previous bill passed only by the House that expanded the scope of the Wire Act. The passed bill only addresses banking issues. The act was signed into law on October 13, 2006 by the President, and there is a provision for a 270-day period to develop enforcement measures. At the bill-signing ceremony, Bush never mentioned the Internet gambling measure, which was opposed by banking groups. In response to this new legislation, a number of online gambling operators announced that real-money gambling operations would be suspended for U.S. customers. PartyGaming's stock dropped by 60% following its announcement. Other operators such as PokerStars continue service to US players.

Get more infomation here. I like to play poker about once or twice a week online at (pokerStars). First of all, let me start by saying the reason I like to play poker as apposed to any other type of casino game is because it requires a little skill, luck and timing to me this is not gambling. Gambling is random like slots or blackjack, where you play against the house. Its more like betting, on yourself.

Secondly, I like online poker because it gives me the ability to play "micro level" games. What "micro" means online is games that cost less then 5 dollars to play. You could only play a game this cheaply online because being at a casino this would be a non-profit event for the house. Online it gives me the advantage of playing a 1 dollar tournament where there may be 1500-3000. So I can play 1-5 hours of poker for only a dollar and I have a chance at winning a few hundred if I win, good deal to me. If I would go to a casino and buy-in for a live tournament then I could expect to pay $50 dollars or more and also typically the amount of people playing are less then 100. Its a nice thing every once and a while but there would be no real way to sharpen my skills because I need many hours of "practicing at a lower level." for me to go big. Anyways that's why I like to play. That and online I can play at home in my underwear if I like.

I was looking through some old posts the other day and realised that my blog reached its one year anniversary. Here is a link to my first post.

I plan on posting articles of interest for local Real Estate as well as share my opinion on issues. Also, I plan to use this blog to broadcast any other personal stuff that may come up. This is going to be a way for me to keep in touch with Family, Friends, Clients, and Future Clients.

My Yearly Blog Traffic:
Since day one I have been tracking the number of visitors to my blog using a free tracker program called sitemeter.com. I like it because its easy to use and set up. Its a fast, free Web counter that has custom counters styles. Site Meter creates dynamic 3D charts showing visitors, page views, country maps, visit durations and more. I use the free version, there is the sitemeterPlus which has all kinds of cool features. Another cool website tracker that I have used is MyblogLog.com which is a more detailed and more advanced free tracker but I just like the features of sitemeter better.

From the beginning I have had around about 8000 visitors and about 113,000 page views. This week my traffic was around 177 visits. I don't know why there are sooo many page views vs. Visitors? I would guess people are really reading my blog or there is somthing else going on.....(Click Fraud)

When I started the blog I got off to a slow start and found out that I could really kick up the traffic from craigslist and also gathering readers from my other websites, through email and word of mouth. Currently my blog is completly supported with passive visitors. I get a majority of my traffic from google and yahoo. I also have a small base of loyal readers aswell. .My traffic peaked in april when I was doing a few ads for a house in the bay area on craigslist. Those peak months were months when I had more posting per month then any other.

As you can see from the chart in the last few months I have been posting less and have been pretty happy with the steady passive traffic flow of about 20-40 a day. If I do a promotion and pull out all of the tricks I can get 100-250+ visits in one day. Since I have started the blog part of my motivation is to sell real estate. While I know that the blog is being read I cant say that I have directly received any sales because of my blog. But that's not my motivation and that's why I enjoy working on it.....Its a little personal and a little business, a blend, just like my life.

My Favorites!
This year I published about 130 posts. I like each post I do but my favorites of the bunch in no particular order are:

1) My first house and pictures of my first house.
2) What I did on my birthday.
3) Castle for sale in the Centennial Estates (Love this house!)
4) Lathrop is booming.
5) Capital Gains Tax Laws and Loopholes. (this gets the most national traffic.)
6) What $200,000 will get you in Tracy, Ca. (it Sold!)

7) Byron Hotsprings posts;
Pictures I took of the Byron Hotsprings Hotel on 4/29/06
More pictures & reading on Byron Hotsprings Hotel....
The Future of Byron Hotsprings
Byron Hotsprings AKA Camp Tracy.
History of the Hotsprings

8) Local Superstar MC Hammer gets a Blog
9) My RedCross Experance (Hurricane Katrina & Rita)
10) My Pets 'N' Pals Post
11) Brichetto Tomb Historic landmark
12) My two Chinchillas
13) Star Trek: The Experance in Las Vagas
14) Friends of Tyler

It was fun going through my blog posts for the year and it took a lot longer then I thought. I was supposted to post this on the third! I forgot how much I have written over the year, around 130 posts, about one every other day. Once I have a blog post done I usually forget about it and move on. I do have about twenty posts in draft form that I have never published, just incomplete ideas that I never came back to. What I like and what was an unexpected benifit is that I can look at my blog posts over the last year almost like a diary.

Brian Barringer

Old Poppa Carrapaud's, Mansion Impossible:

I like to play this game every six months or so. Its fun and easy but I just wish there were a more interesting real estate simulation game out there.

The aim of the game is to make enough money buying and selling houses on the property market to buy the million dollar mansion. Its easy to play and a simple game. The choice to have each home increase then decrease in value before being swept off the market altogether reduces the depth of the game play significantly. It would have been nice to see some different market influences affecting each home's market price's and things like interest rates and buying and selling market trends.
Here is the link

Sorta boring and kinda-important Legal News: specificly contract law




Van Slyke v. Gibson (2007) , Cal.App.4th:

In this case, a potential buyer wrote an offer using the C.A.R. Residential Purchase Agreement. The sellers made a counter offer requiring the buyer, upon acceptance, to provide written confirmation from his lender that it would lend on the property, which was a large acreage with a modular home. The buyer accepted the counter offer, but never provided the confirmation letter and his deposit check had insufficient funds. The transaction never closed. When the sellers then accepted another buyer's offer, the first buyer sued for breach of contract and specific performance. The parties went to trial on the buyer's specific performance claim and the sellers won. As the prevailing party, the sellers were awarded $94,974 in attorney fees and costs for defending the specific performance claim.



Brian Barringer
Barringer Team



Read the FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY (Van Slyke v. Gibson (2007) , Cal.App.4th) from http://fsnews.findlaw.com.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 8, 2004, Van Slyke made a written offer to purchase 23 acres of undeveloped property located at 2222 Richview Road in Santa Maria, owned by the Gibsons. The offer provided for a 90-day escrow and the obtaining of financing for most of the purchase price of $875,000.

On May 10, 2004, the Gibsons made a counter-offer with an $899,000 purchase price and a 30-day escrow. The counter-offer also stated: "Upon acceptance, {Slip Opn. Page 2} buyer to provide prequalification letter from lender, as well as written confirmation from lender that they will loan on acreage with existing modular home." Van Slyke accepted and executed the counter-offer, but did not provide the lender prequalification and confirmation letters. Consequently, on May 17, 2004, the Gibsons accepted an all-cash purchase offer of $899,000 from David Daniels and Jennifer Daniels.

On June 1, 2004, Van Slyke brought an action for breach of contract and specific performance against the Gibsons. The Daniels also brought a separate action for specific performance against the Gibsons. Van Slyke and the Daniels filed separate lis pendens against the Richview Road property.

On July 8, 2004, the Gibsons filed a cross-complaint in the Van Slyke action, against Van Slyke and his realtor, Monika Draggoo. The Gibsons alleged causes of action for intentional and negligent interference with an economic relationship. Two months later, the Gibsons dismissed Van Slyke from the cross-complaint. The trial court later severed the cross-complaint from the Van Slyke action.

The trial court consolidated the Van Slyke and Daniels specific performance actions for trial. Following trial, the court decided that Van Slyke did not accept the counter-offer because he did not provide a lender's written confirmation letter. The trial court found that the Daniels "came in front of this court with pristine hands [but] Van Slyke['s] couldn't get any dirtier." The trial court also found that Van Slyke's $10,000 deposit check "was an N.S.F. check." The court granted specific performance to the Daniels.

The Gibsons then sought their attorney fees to defend the Van Slyke action, pursuant to the "California Residential Purchase Agreement" attorney fee provisions. Van Slyke responded that the Gibsons did not attempt to mediate the dispute prior to filing their cross-complaint. He relied upon Paragraph 17 (A) of the agreement, providing: "Buyer and Seller agree to mediate any dispute or claim arising between them out of this Agreement, or any resulting transaction, before resorting to arbitration or court action. . . . If, for any dispute or claim to which this paragraph applies, any party commences an action without first attempting to resolve the matter through mediation, or {Slip Opn. Page 3} refuses to mediate after a request has been made, then that party shall not be entitled to recover attorney fees, even if they would otherwise be available to that party in any such action." The Gibsons replied that their attorney telephoned Van Slyke's attorney and requested mediation prior to filing the cross-complaint, but Van Slyke's attorney refused. They added that they were seeking fees only for the defense of the Van Slyke action, not for prosecution of the severed cross-complaint.

The trial court awarded the Gibsons $94,974 attorney fees plus costs. Van Slyke appeals and contends that the Gibsons' failure to offer mediation of the cross-complaint precludes the attorney fee award.

DISCUSSION

Van Slyke argues that insufficient evidence supports the implied finding of the trial court that the Gibsons proposed mediation prior to filing their cross-complaint. He asserts that the declaration of the Gibsons' attorney that he offered to mediate the dispute is insubstantial evidence. Van Slyke points out that we independently review the legal basis for an attorney fee award. (Blackburn v. Charnley (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 758, 767.)

We review the determination of an award of attorney fees de novo as a question of law. (Blackburn v. Charnley, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th 758, 767 [attorney fees pursuant to California Residential Purchase Agreement].) The parties' real estate purchase agreement provides that in any action between the buyer and seller, the prevailing party is entitled to recover attorney fees, unless that party brought the action without first attempting to mediate the dispute. (Johnson v. Siegel (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1087, 1100.) "Seeking mediation is a condition precedent to the recovery of attorney fees by the party who initiates the action." (Id., at p. 1101.)

Here the Gibsons sought their attorney fees for defense of the Van Slyke action, not for prosecution of the cross-complaint. The Gibsons had dismissed Van Slyke as a defendant in the cross-complaint, and the trial court severed the cross-complaint from the lawsuit that Van Slyke initiated. (Omni Aviation Managers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 682, 684 [severance of cross-complaint from complaint {Slip Opn. Page 4} results in two actions pending].) Civil Code section 1717 permits an award of attorney fees "'even when the party prevails on grounds the contract is . . . nonexistent, if the other party would have been entitled to attorney's fees had it prevailed.' [Citations.]" (Hsu v. Abbara (1995) 9 Cal.4th 863, 870.) Therefore, the Gibsons did not have to seek mediation.

In any event, the Gibsons' attorney declared that he telephoned Van Slyke's attorney and proposed arbitration and mediation of the dispute, but was rebuffed. Moreover, in a pretrial brief, the Gibsons confirmed that they offered arbitration and mediation to Van Slyke, but he rejected these alternatives. The trial court determines the weight of evidence and the credibility of a declarant in matters submitted upon declarations. (Brunzell Construction Co., Inc. v.Smith (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 617, 620.)

The Gibsons are also entitled to an award of attorney fees on appeal, in an amount to be determined by the trial court. (Los Angeles Times v. Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1381, 1393.)

The order is affirmed. Costs to respondents.

Yegan, J., and Perren, J., concurred.