24 years, 2,000 cases
|Award name||Grantor||Date granted|
|Peer Review Rated||Martindale-Hubbell||2017|
|Best Team - Moot Court Competition||Western State University College of Law||1992|
|Attorney at Law||Law Offices of Kenny Tan||1994 - Present|
|Assistant Engineer||Metropolitan Water District||1993 - 1993|
|Geotechnical Engineer||Earth Technology||1988 - 1993|
|Association name||Position name||Duration|
|National Association of Realtors||Realtor||2004 - Present|
|California Association of Realtors||Member||2004 - Present|
|Chinese American Construction Professionals||Member||2000 - Present|
|Marquez v. Aurora Loan Service, LLC||Lender agreed to postpone sale date and later modified the loan. Case dismissed|
|EMC v. Hester/Hesterv. EMC||Settled. Lender rescinded trustee's sale, borrower reacquired title and received loan modification on a jumbo loan at low interest rate with 40-year amortization. Case dismissed.|
|Martin v. Caro Properties||Defense Verdict|
|See all legal cases|
|Homes Magazine||Mold Litigation||2006|
|Western State University College of Law||Law||JD - Juris Doctor||1993|
|University of California - Los Angeles||Civil Engineering||Master of Science||1989|
|California St Univ Long Beach||Civil Engineering||undergraduate||1987|
|Monthly General Meeting||The Nuts and Bolts of Mechanic's Lien||2002|
Posted by Christina
My husband found Kenny Tan throught online reviews. We were dealing with an incompetent and untrustworthy broker who represent both the seller and us the buyer. The broker did not operate in our best interest. He misled us in releasing our deposit to the seller by informing us that he found us a home loan and closing will happen soon. As an inexperience buyer, we took his words and released the deposit. Then 6 months went by, we still did not close escrow and the broker's communication with us became inconsistent and limited. As for the home loan he said he found never happened. At this point, we knew we need to terminate him and find ourselves a real estate attorney to deal with the situation and get our deposit back from the seller. Without any hesitation, Kenny offered to represent us as an agent and attorney . The stress dealing with this matter immediately lifted off my shoulder. His experiences in real estate arena gave me the confidence that things will get done. He was knowledgeable and an effective communicator and negotiator throughout the whole process with me, the seller's agent, and the escrow company. My emails and phone calls were answered in timely manner. Within 2 months, we got our deposit back. Although the home purchase did not go through due to seller increasing the home price and changing other condition, we were just relieved and happy that we got our deposit and the ordeal is finally over. Through this experience, we learned that buying or selling a home, one needs an agent who looks after your best interest, who operates ethically, who is knowledgeable and experience, and most importantly, someone who is a communicator. Kenny has all these qualities, and I highly recommend him to my families and friends. Lastly, he is also very affordable.
Posted by Salina
I first heard about Attorney Tan over a radio channel - Rush Hour. The host of the program was calling Mr. Tan, the attorney with conscience. I was doubtful about an attorney having conscience. In late 2012, I ran into a real estate purchasing dispute with the seller and also my agent, who is also the seller agent. I called the radio station and got hold of the phone number of Mr. Tan. Within two months, Mr. Tan was able to get the dispute resolved for me without me losing the down payment and the seller was willing to go through with the transaction. This success was all attributed to Mr. Tan's experience in litigation and also his familiarity with Escrow requirement and the conflicting position of the agent. Mr. Tan was diligent in his communication with me. He was patient and was readily available even on calls and was willing to have strategic discussion on weekend. I would recommend Mr. Tan if you are experiencing legal dispute in real estate transaction.
Posted by Yan
In March 2006, Tan substituted in for me in the lawsuit against my homeowners association - 2176 Pacific HOA in the limited civil jurisdic-
tion court in Newport Beach. The case number is 05HL03448. He added the declaratory relief into the 2nd Amended Complaint and filed with the same court. Before the trial date of 4/11/2006, he did not propound discovery. He found out that the Newport Beach court had no jurisdiction to try the case. The case was heard by a different judge at Laguna Hills Court on 4/12/2006. Tan requested the case to be dismissed without prejudice. The Laguna Hills Court granted the dismissal. Tan advised me to refile the case at Santa Ana Court where declaratory relief cound be sought, and he needed more time to think about the case. The defendant motioned for their attorney fees of $18,789. I refiled the case as unlimited at the Santa Ana Court in June
2006 in pro per. I paid Tan to oppose the attorney fee motion and lost.
The court ruled that I should have requested a case reclassification to be unlimited instead of a dismissal. Tan verbally agreed to represent me in the refiled case and in the appeal against the attorney fee judgment. The refiled case had the trial date of 4/9/2007. In the appeal, I paid Tan to prepare the proposed settled statement.
Until March 2007, Tan did not commit himself to represent me in the refiled case trial. I took my documents from Tan and hired another attorney - Philip A. Putman. Putman believed that Tan was negligent and initiated a lawsuit against Tan in 7/2007 under the case number of
07CC07758. Tan demanded binding arbitration as per the attorney-client agreement. Putman did not propound the discovery in the refiled
case. I lost the refiled case and the appeal. In Feb. 2007, 2176 Pacific
HOA towed away my van. Before the towing, the HOA claimed that to amend the parking rules of the CC&R's. In Dec. 2006, HOA claimed that the amended parking rules were approved by a majority vote and immediately effective. I told Tan that the amendment singled me out.
After the towing in Feb. 2007, I told Tan in his office. Tan advise me to leave them alone so long HOA did not further bother me. Tan told me that his car was towed away and his HOA did not bother him either. After the towing, I have been requesting HOA to produce the majority vote for the amendment and the date it was recorded with the County of Orange. Two years after the towing, I heard from the president of HOA that the CC&Rs were not amended but HOA still had power to tow. For this towing, I am suing the 2176 Pacific HOA now under 30-2010-00353446 and 30-2010-00342510. I am also suing the towing company Southside Towing in federal court under the case SACV10-
01973 GAF(AJW). The two state cases are pending. Federal case had a default entered o/14/2011 in my favor against the towing company and two of its directors. I bring this up because I believe that Tan should have advised me to ask the HOA for the date the amendment was recorded with the county. If they did not, then I have a solid case against the HOA for civil rights violation under 42 US Code 1983. This was the merit of my case. Unfortunately, Tan failed to advise me in that
direction. In summary, Tan dismissed my case which caused the initial
damages of $18,789 and abandoned me in the refiled and appeal cases. Tan claimed to the arbitrator that my case "simply" had no merit and I would still lose the case even if it was transferred. Tan won the arbitration by claiming to the arbitrator that he did not cause damages. But the fact is: He advised me to dismiss the case without prejudice to refile. That dismissal caused me an adverse judgment of $18,789. Tan lost the trust from me, a former client. I would like to share this personal
experience with others. I take full responsibility for submitting this infor-
mation. The info can be verified through the OCSC web-site of http:// occourts.gov. under name search Yan Sui.