Resume

• 1992

  Russian

  J.D.

  (Simultaneously pursued master's degree from Tufts University's The Fletcher School.)

  Law

  Virginia Journal of International Law

  Notes Editor.\nJ.B. Moore Society of International Law.\nPhillip Jessup Moot Court.

  University of Virginia School of Law

• 1991

  M.A.L.D.

  Ford Foundation Fellow (full tuition fellowship).\n(Pursued M.A.L.D. concurrently with J.D. at UVA Law)\nFields of concentration: International Law (public and private)

  East European Studies. \nLanguage: Russian. \nOral Thesis: “Investment in the Ruble Zone: Navigating the Murky Waters of Currency Control.”

  International Law & Diplomacy

  •\tFord Foundation Fellow\n Executive Editor of De Facto

  a student publication\n•\tNewscaster for “Fletcher World Focus” radio program\n Founded Fletcher A-Chords (female a capella group)

  The Fletcher School (Tufts University)

• 1986

  B.A.

  B.A. with Honors in Russian and International Relations (double major

  with honors)\nPresidential Scholar (4 years

  full tuition).

  International Relations & Russian

  •\tMae Covey Gardner Fellowship for study in Vienna

  Austria.\n•\tPhi Kappa Phi Honor Society. American Council of Teachers of Russian program for semester language study in Moscow

  USSR. French House. Russian House. Performed in \"Dostoyevsky's The Idiot

  \" adapted by Tom Rogers (in Russian). Women's Chorus.

  Brigham Young University

  W-L Madrigals

• Andrea J. Boyack

  Andrea J. Boyack

  Real Estate Transactions

  Criminal Law

  Corporate Governance

  Real Estate Development

  Litigation

  Teaching

  Intellectual Property

  Mergers & Acquisitions

  Legal Research

  Public Speaking

  Civil Litigation

  Legal Writing

  Commercial Litigation

  International Law

  Mergers

  Joint Ventures

  Policy Analysis

  Corporate Law

  Real Estate

  Commercial Real Estate

  Laudable Goals and Unintended Consequences: The Role and Control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

  The United States is struggling to emerge from an era of loose mortgage underwriting standards that led to origination and securitization of toxic loans. The fallout has been crippling

  costing borrowers their homes

  investors their money

  and the government its taxes. \nThe Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

  the only law offering a systemic solution

  deliberately did not deal with the biggest elephant(s) in the room: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

  behemoths of the secondary mortgage market. With political pressures to stop taxpayer bailouts and the reality of a frozen mortgage market should Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac cease to exist

  when it comes to the GSEs

  the administration feels damned if they do and damned if they don’t.\nFor decades

  the U.S. mortgage finance system was the envy of the world

  providing a sure capital source for homebuyers. While the finance system did become unhinged

  subtracting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from the finance equation at this point may very well be market suicide

  and the repercussions for borrowers

  communities and investors would be dire indeed. Luckily

  this extreme step is unnecessary: the system’s failures can be adequately (and better) addressed within the GSE framework. \nA well functioning market is the best way to emerge from the recession and protect future buyers and investors alike. \nThis article first discusses the history and purposes of the GSEs and what went wrong with the system. With reference to the Obama Administration’s February 2011 Report to Congress

  Part II analyzes proposals to reform and wind down the GSEs in light of their likely legal and market impact. Part III offers some general suggestions on better approaches to crafting America’s future mortgage market and advocates for solutions more precisely tailored to remedy apparent systemic problems while achieving the identified policy goals.

  Laudable Goals and Unintended Consequences: The Role and Control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

  On Jan. 18 at 5:45 p.m.

  a meteorite crashed through the ceiling of a medical office in Lorton

  Va. It damaged the building and interior finishings but hurt no one. The meteorite's fall from space is over

  but the earthly battle over its ownership has just begun. This

  in a circumstance of pure kismet

  was a mere 90 minutes after I had wrapped up a lesson in my property law course discussing meteorite ownership disputes

  among other things.\n\n\"It's evident that ownership is tied to the landowner

  \" asserted one of the landlords. The tenant doctors

  by publicizing their intent to donate the meteorite to the Smithsonian and any proceeds to Haitian earthquake relief

  have likely won the public relations battle in the court of public opinion. But who should win title in a court of law?\nAnalyzing the law of first possession

  constructive possession of objects found on real property

  the concept of fixtures in landlord-tenant law

  and the law of \"finders

  \" the author concludes that ownership of the meteorite in this case vested in the office space tenants; not the landlord.

  Who Owns the Meteorite?

  Cooking Up a Crisis: The Capital-Valuation Connection in U.S. Real Estate Markets

  One-fifth of all Americans today live in privately governed

  common interest communities (CICs). By definition

  property in a CIC is subject to restrictions on use

  however many CIC properties are also constrained by restrictions on transfer. Owners may not be able to freely sell or lease their property because of limitations in the community's covenant regime. Such restrictions on transfer increase the economic vulnerability of communities and their members and compromise owners'​ property rights.\n\nHistorically

  most restrictions on alienation contained in community covenants have been upheld based on freedom of contract rationale

  but courts have struck down some such restrictions as unduly limiting an owner's economic interest in the property. When a restriction significantly hinders an owner's ability to make the trapped value of the real estate liquid

  courts are more likely to deem the restriction “unreasonable” and refuse its enforcement. Other sorts of limitations — including those that increase the costs of transfer or constrain an owner's choice of transferee — are usually not invalidated.\n\nToday

  one of the most common alienation restrictions in private communities is a leasing limitation. Although courts purport to police such restrictions for unreasonableness

  the near uniform judicial validation of leasing restrictions does not adequately protect the economic interests of owners.\n

  Community Covenant Alienation Restraints and the Hazard of Unbounded Servitudes

  Courts take a hands-off approach with respect to the content of common interest community (CIC) covenants

  reasoning that freedom of contract mandates their enforcement. But CIC covenants differ from voluntary private contracts in important ways

  making deferential enforcement in the name of contract policy unwarranted. Covenants that run with the land are specifically enforceable and bind subsequent owners of the property

  potentially in perpetuity. Furthermore

  CIC covenants are contracts of adhesion

  made up of completely non-negotiable

  recorded terms bundled into home acquisition. Developers and lenders generally prescribe the content of such covenants

  and they may not reflect community desires or values. Contract analogy should not create presumptive validity for all CIC covenants and properly enacted rules. The reality of CIC governance is more complicated and implicates property and constitutional concerns as well as contract law. The proper approach to CIC governance review must draw from all three of these areas of the law. The subject matter scope of CIC governance should be limited based on servitude law principles. Constitutional protections should be legislated for members of CICs. And bona fide

  deliberate assent should be prerequisite to holding owners bound to CIC obligations.

  Common Interest Community Covenants and the Freedom of Contract Myth

  Real estate prices and mortgage capital are interdependent factors that cause unsustainable price inflation

  and this led to the financial crisis of 2008. Capital acts like yeast in baking to inflate real estate values. Real property is inherently valuable because of its permanence and productivity

  though such value has no direct economic effect when trapped by illiquidity or inalienability. Like feeding yeast with sugars

  however

  “feeding” real estate value with readily-available capital can allow that trapped value to become liquid – creating usable wealth. The resulting mixture of land plus money causes real estate values to expand and grow

  creating a real estate capital market which has a tendency to self-inflate. Result: a so-called “recipe for disaster.” \nU.S. policies and financial structures have fed a steady stream of capital into the real estate market mixture for years. Decades ago

  the U.S. government fashioned secondary market entities whose mission was to provide the incentive and the ability for origination of more mortgage loans. More recently

  Wall Street master chefs designed scrumptious new products – packaging

  rating and selling asset-backed securities and their derivatives. The robust secondary mortgage market in the United States increased the supply of mortgage capital which – like simple sugars added to yeast – fed real asset value. Without the proper allocation of risk

  such value inflation becomes unsustainable.\nRisk allocation can mitigate the effect of the inherent inflationary cycle of capital markets. To moderate asset price inflation

  the law must be place risk of loss with parties drive real estate valuation.

  U.S. Real Estate Finance: An Engine of the Crisis

  Today’s soaring mortgage default rate and the uncertainty and delay associated with mortgage foreclosure proceedings threatens condominiums and homeowner associations across the country. But the collateral damages caused by delayed foreclosures and insufficient recoveries can be minimized by gradually increasing the priority position of the association lien. \nIn a majority of states

  foreclosure of the mortgage lien extinguishes the assessment whether or not there are sufficient proceeds to reimburse for community charges

  and this imposes costs on the neighborhood. The longer it takes to complete foreclosure

  the greater these costs. Although several states have adopted a limited lien priority for up to six months’ worth of unpaid assessments

  foreclosures today take far longer than six months

  and the amount ultimately owed to a community can be significant and far exceed that cap. Federal housing policy impacts the resolution of the issue because the FHA

  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac only permit qualifying mortgages to be subject to a six-month assessment lien priority. The decelerating pace of foreclosure further exacerbates the already unjustifiable financial impact borne by non-defaulting neighbors. The lien priority status quo fails to adequately protect communities in today’s context of widespread and delayed foreclosures and under-collateralized mortgage loans. Decreasing the first mortgage lien’s priority during a foreclosure delay would mitigate community harm. \nBank lobbyists have historically opposed any enhanced assessment lien priority

  but supporting property upkeep and making assessments more predictable and collectible would actually benefit lenders by shoring up the value of their collateral. Better certainty with respect to homeowner payment obligations will also enable more responsible credit underwriting and contribute to economic recovery.

  Community Collateral Damage: A Question of Priorities

  Article discusses treatment of penalty provisions in American Law and poses a question as to whether this model can inform the development of Georgian contract law.

  Comparative Contract Damages and Penalty Provisions

  Sustainable real estate development is an essential component of intergenerational justice

  in part because the real estate sector creates more than 20% of the world’s carbon emissions.The affordable housing sector

  however

  needs more than marginal governmental carrots and sticks to be able to implement sustainability practices. Environmental sustainability will elude affordable housing as long as it remains in its current

  financially unsustainable state. Government housing assistance programs are unpredictable

  underfunded

  and may to some extent perpetuate rather than solve the problem of housing need. The nation’s supply of affordable housing is rapidly declining in quality as well as quantity

  and rising housing costs and stagnant incomes mean that an ever-increasing number of lower-income households must devote an unsustainably high percentage of their income toward housing costs. Our affordable housing system cannot go green until the system stops operating in the red. Properly conceived

  affordable sustainability of housing and sustainable affordability of housing are mutually enforcing concepts. Successful housing laws and policy must therefore find a way to achieve both.

  Sustainable Affordable Housing

  The Three and a Half Minute Transaction: Boilerplate and the Limits of Contractual Design

  by Mitu Gulati and Robert E. Scott

  is a cautionary tale about modern legal practice where the protagonist is the standard sovereign debt contract. The book discloses an undeniable flaw in sovereign bond boilerplate (the widely used pari passu clause) that

  in spite of expensive

  sophisticated lawyering

  perpetuates a risky disconnect between party intent and contract terms. The fact that boilerplate terms persist even in elite sovereign-lending practices suggests that the problem of over-reliance on standard form language is ubiquitous.When contract terms diverge from client risk management and intent

  lawyers have neither provided clients proper representation nor justified their fees.\n\nSituated in the context of sovereign debt failures and a profession at the crossroads

  the authors' engaging book sounds a well-researched wake-up call to the law. \n\nThis review explains the context of their study and then builds upon their findings. This review explores two questions suggested but not addressed in The Three and a Half Minute Transaction

  namely: What does boilerplate stickiness reveal about the continuing validity of certain contract law doctrines

  and what does it suggest for the evolving role of the modern transactional attorney? The conclusion on both accounts is that transactional law practice requires a systemic overhaul

  re-focusing lawyerly attention from bulk production of contracts to innovations in contract research and design.

  Sovereign Debt and \"The Three and a Half Minute Transaction\"​: What Sticky Boilerplate Reveals About Contract Law and Practice

  Homeownership in the US is on the decline and the percentage of the population that rents their residence is growing. Renters present a distinct demographic compared to owners

  and most of the more vulnerable segments of society rent their homes. But the law prohibits renting a home in some neighborhoods. Occasionally

  zoning provisions hamper the ability of would-be tenants and would-be landlords to rent. More typically

  however

  community restrictive covenants are what block rentals. Zoning prohibitions on rentals have been attacked as violations of property rights. But in condominiums and other privately governed neighborhoods

  segregation of renters from owner occupants has been continually upheld by the courts and has been consistently promoted as policy by government and quasi government entities. These policies and legal structures harm not only the rights of would-be landlords but also would-be tenants in such communities. Community rental restrictive covenants perpetuate broader social harms as well. It is time to rethink the desirability of these restrictions

  even in the \"private\" context of neighborhood covenants.​

  American Dream in Flux: The Endangered Right to Lease a Home

  The problem of neighborhood deterioration is keenly visible in Detroit today

  but Detroit’s housing struggles are not unique. Like most of America

  the Detroit metropolitan area is racially fragmented

  and minority neighborhoods are the most likely to be impoverished and failing. Detroit’s problems of housing abandonment and neighborhood decay are both caused and exacerbated by decades of housing segregation and inequality. The “American Dream” has always been one of equal opportunity

  but there can be no equality of opportunity when there is such stark inequality among home environments. Detroit’s neighborhood decline is a symptom of the city’s population loss and its mounting fiscal crisis that recently culminated in bankruptcy. Although the city’s bankruptcy raises numerous financial issues to be resolved

  Detroit can only create a sustainable future by addressing its regional housing inequities as well. In addition

  as a recipient of federal housing funds

  Detroit shares in the legal mandate to “affirmatively further fair housing.”\n\nPrioritizing de-segregation while still addressing the problem of numerous abandoned properties can allow Detroit to find a silver lining in the gray cloud of its current vacancy crisis in that vacant properties could present an opportunity to address the city’s persistent and destructive racial housing inequality. Deliberately creating diverse communities is the key not only to regional economic stability

  but also to national racial social harmony.\n\nThis article discusses the causes and effects of racially segregated housing and the role of local control in the context of Detroit’s past decline and hoped-for revitalization. This article also explores the fair housing implications of government efforts to address neighborhood decline and to encourage revitalization.

  A New American Dream for Detroit

  Failing urban cores represent one of today’s biggest societal problems. Decades of population and income loss have left many urban neighborhoods trapped in a physical

  economic

  and social death spiral. Cities present great potential sources of wealth and culture for society. It will be challenging for municipalities

  regions

  and states to create and execute plans to rebuild decaying urban neighborhoods in a way that will both generate economic opportunity and sustainably integrate people of different races

  ethnicities

  and income levels. Federal financing structures and local zoning laws should be harnessed to achieve that vision.\n\nThis article discusses the need to reform financial structures and zoning approaches in the context of needed urban redevelopment. Part I explains the inadequacy of historic affordable housing programs

  pointing out that these have been insufficient to provide equitable housing opportunities and have

  in fact

  entrenched the problems of city-suburb divide and racial and income segregation. Part II posits that federal housing assistance should be re-imagined in a more holistic way

  focused first on improving a neighborhood rather than individual renters or units. It also discusses some creative ways that federal and local agencies may enlist private investment and involvement in community revitalization efforts while retaining necessary control. Part III advocates that city planners move away from use-segregated zoning approaches and embrace inclusionary approaches that will promote neighborhoods that are diverse with respect to property uses and types of residential housing options. With the proper foresight and incentive structures

  urban gentrification can be channeled to maximize housing integration and neighborhood stability.

  Side by Side: Revitalizing Urban Cores and Ensuring Residential Diversity

  Courts take a hands-off approach with respect to the content of common interest community (CIC) covenants

  reasoning that freedom of contract mandates their enforcement. But CIC covenants differ from voluntary private contracts in important ways

  making deferential enforcement in the name of contract policy unwarranted. Covenants that run with the land are specifically enforceable and bind subsequent owners of the property

  potentially in perpetuity. Furthermore

  CIC covenants are contracts of adhesion

  made up of completely non-negotiable

  recorded terms bundled into home acquisition. Developers and lenders generally prescribe the content of such covenants

  and they may not reflect community desires or values. Contract analogy should not create presumptive validity for all CIC covenants and properly enacted rules. The reality of CIC governance is more complicated and implicates property and constitutional concerns as well as contract law. The proper approach to CIC governance review must draw from all three of these areas of the law. The subject matter scope of CIC governance should be limited based on servitude law principles. Constitutional protections should be legislated for members of CICs. And bona fide

  deliberate assent should be prerequisite to holding owners bound to CIC obligations.\n

  Common Interest Community Covenants and the Freedom of Contract Myth

  In chapter 13

  a debtor who elects to keep secured property must pay off the secured claim through an acceptable plan

  and if the debtor opts to liquidate the secured property

  then the debtor may sell it free and clear of liens if it is authorized to do so under § 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. This straightforward method of wiping the slate clean in bankruptcy has recently been threatened by home mortgage holders’ reluctance to foreclose. If the secured lender refuses to accept a debtor’s surrender and foreclose on its lien

  the mere filing of bankruptcy will not operate to release the borrower from legal responsibility for property carrying costs and associated liabilities. In cases of foreclosure delay

  the defaulted mortgage becomes impossible to kill off completely

  even when a borrower has abandoned the home and sought a bankruptcy fresh start. This undead mortgage prevents the property from entering the flow of commerce and poses a barrier to acquisition by a new owner willing to shoulder its upkeep. When mortgage lenders refuse to foreclose real property surrendered in bankruptcy

  courts have variously attempted to address the zombie mortgage. One underutilized way to kill off a zombie mortgage is to order the home be sold

  free and clear of liens

  under § 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. This section permits a trustee (or debtor-in-possession) to sell property free of outstanding liens in certain enumerated cases

  including cases of lender assent

  cases where the sale price will cover the aggregate value of liens encumbering the property

  and cases where a free-and-clear sale would otherwise be available under a legal or equitable proceeding. Each of these options provides an interesting possible route to clearing title and providing a debtor with a fresh start in cases of foreclosure delay.

  Bankruptcy Weapons to Terminate a Zombie Mortgage

  America’s population of renters is growing faster than the supply of available rental units. Rental vacancies are reaching new lows

  and rental rates are reaching new highs. Millions of former homeowners have lost their homes in foreclosure and

  due to today’s much tighter mortgage underwriting realities

  will not realistically re-enter the ranks of owner-occupants. For a number of reasons – variety of incomes

  different stages in life

  and a range of personal preferences and lifestyles – homeownership is not for everyone. And yet federal government housing policy has consistently prioritized homeownership over renter-specific issues

  such as affordability and rental supply and distribution. State and local housing assistance programs are shockingly insufficient to meet ballooning needs. Reallocation of focus and funds at the federal level

  however

  could help grow the supply of rental housing and provide renters at all income levels a realistic chance of occupying quality and affordable rental housing

  even in a “high opportunity” neighborhood. The government must first reorient its myopic housing policy focus away from an over-emphasis on building homeownership. It must free up government funds for use in support of affordable rental housing. In addition

  government funds and agency efforts should be carefully allocated to increase the availability of housing assistance and government gap funding of affordable housing as well as to encourage private investment in the supply of affordable rental housing.

  Equitably Housing (Almost) Half a Nation if Renters

  For decades

  society’s disparate interests and priorities have stymied attempts to resolve issues of housing affordability and equity. Zoning law and servitude law

  both of which have been robustly empowered by decades of jurisprudence

  effectively grant communities the legal right and ability to exclude various sorts of residences from their wealthiest neighborhoods. Exclusion by housing type results in exclusion of categories of people

  namely

  renters

  the relatively poor

  and racial minorities. Although our society’s housing woes may indeed be intractable if we continue to treat a group’s right to exclude with the level of deference that such exclusionary efforts currently enjoy

  this treatment is unjustifiable. Courts should acknowledge and consider the broad public and private costs that are created by a group’s unfettered right to exclude. A more balanced approach would weigh individual autonomy to control property and various public harms resulting from community exclusions against legitimate community needs to exclude certain residents and uses. Judicial limits of the collective right to exclude may enable real progress toward fair and affordable housing to be achieved at last.

  Limiting the Collective Right to Exclude

  The U.S. residential housing market collapse illustrates the consequences of ignoring risk while funding mortgage borrowing. Collateral over-valuation was a foundational piece of the crisis. Over the past few decades

  secondary markets

  securitization

  policy and psychology increased the flow of funds into real estate. At the same time

  financial market segmentation divorced risk from reward. Increased mortgage capital availability

  unmitigated by proper risk allocation

  led to real estate price inflation. Social trends and government policies exacerbated both the mortgage capital over-supply and the risk-valuation disconnect. \n\nThe Dodd-Frank Act inadequately addresses the underlying asset valuation problem. Federal regulation may support market stability systemically

  but micro-level oversight and private rights of action more efficiently and effectively secure responsible mortgage pricing.

  Lessons in Price Stability from the U.S. Real Estate Market Collapse

  Intentionally or not

  every state’s law regarding lien priority and post-foreclosure liability allocates risk between mortgage lenders and privately governed “common interest communities” (CICs)

  such as condominiums. When lenders secure their interests with mortgages on property within a CIC

  the mortgages may compete against the CIC’s interests for primacy in the lien hierarchy. Modern state regimes typically delineate the respective rights of mortgagees and CIC associations according to lien-priority statutes. Older condominium-enabling statutes

  however

  do not address CIC lien priority directly and speak only to continuing joint and several liability for subsequent purchasers. These older and more ambiguous statutes do not indicate how state law intended to — or should — balance the competing interests of mortgage lenders and community associations. Today

  these vague statutes present important and politically charged issues that merit legislative consideration and clarification. Furthermore

  recent case law demonstrates that a plain-meaning construction of such an un-clarified statute can produce an outcome that is wrong as a matter of law and unwise as a matter of policy. \n\nThis article examines the problems of vague statutory provisions regarding assessment obligations and their effect on lien priority. It advocates for judicial interpretations that focus on the purposes and intent of these provisions while upholding basic lien-priority law

  and it urges legislative clarification of the existing language.

  Muddying the Waterfall: How Ambiguous Liability Statutes Distort Creditor Priority in Condominium Foreclosures

  Homeownership in the US is on the decline and the percentage of the population that rents their residence is growing. Renters present a distinct demographic compared to owners

  and most of the more vulnerable segments of society rent their homes. But the law prohibits renting a home in some neighborhoods. Occasionally

  zoning provisions hamper the ability of would-be tenants and would-be landlords to rent. More typically

  however

  community restrictive covenants are what block rentals. Zoning prohibitions on rentals have been attacked as violations of property rights. But in condominiums and other privately governed neighborhoods

  segregation of renters from owner occupants has been continually upheld by the courts and has been consistently promoted as policy by government and quasi government entities. These policies and legal structures harm not only the rights of would-be landlords but also would-be tenants in such communities. Community rental restrictive covenants perpetuate broader social harms as well. It is time to rethink the desirability of these restrictions

  even in the \"private\" context of neighborhood covenants.​

  American Dream in Flux: The Endangered Right to Lease a Home

  Andrea

  Fried

  Frank

  Harris

  Shriver & Jacobson

  Fordham Law School

  George Washington University Law School

  George Mason University Law School

  Orrick

  Herrington & Sutcliffe

  Washburn University School of Law

  Reed Smith

  LLP

  The Catholic University of America

  Columbus School of Law

  Goodwin

  Procter & Hoar

  Toll Brothers

  Inc.

  Washington

  DC

  Taught for 5 semesters (Contracts

  Property

  Real Estate Transactions and Professional Responsibility).

  Visiting Associate Professor

  George Washington University Law School

  Falls Church

  VA

  Represented community associations

  banks and developers in planning

  creating and financing community association developments. Other real estate transaction and finance work.

  of Counsel

  Reed Smith

  LLP

  Topeka

  KS

  At Washburn

  I teach transactional courses relating to finance

  property

  contracts

  real estate

  and bankruptcy

  and continue to write and present in those areas of the law. I am co-director of the Business and Transactional Law Center. In 2015

  I was voted Professor of the Year.

  Associate Professor

  Washburn University School of Law

  Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Business & Transactional Law Center

  Topeka

  Kansas Area

  Washburn University School of Law

  New York

  NY

  (This Group moved from O'Melveny & Myers

  where we were previously located)\nInvolved in wide range of transactional work.

  Associate in Capital Markets Group

  Goodwin

  Procter & Hoar

  Washington

  DC

  Directed a variety of large

  multi-faceted corporate and real estate finance transactions.

  Senior Corporate Finance Associate

  Fried

  Frank

  Harris

  Shriver & Jacobson

  New York

  New York

  I taught Contracts and Property at Fordham Law School for the 2011-2012 academic year.

  Visiting Professor

  Fordham Law School

  Sterling

  VA

  I negotiated and conducted various land acquisition and sale transactions for Toll Brothers

  including those structured as financings

  land banking or joint ventures. I also supported development of residential communities

  from zoning to construction issues. \nAs the division's supervising commercial attorney

  I coordinated and oversaw regional development of shopping centers

  apartment buildings

  hotels and offices

  including multiple commercial lease transactions.

  Regional Counsel

  Toll Brothers

  Inc.

  Arlington

  VA

  Taught Real Estate Finance Law course to upper level law school students.

  Adjunct Professor

  George Mason University Law School

  Washington

  DC

  Visiting professor for two semesters (spring 2008 and spring 2010)

  teaching Property and Public International Law on each visit.

  Visiting Professor

  The Catholic University of America

  Columbus School of Law

  Washington

  DC

  Represented financial institutions in asset-backed securities transactions.

  Associate in Structured Finance Group

  Orrick

  Herrington & Sutcliffe