Grace Chinese Alliance Church of the Christian and Missionary Alliance of west Covina, California v. Lin Ma DDS Inc.

Case Number: KC065263    Hearing Date: July 22, 2014    Dept: O

Grace Chinese Alliance Church of the Christian and Missionary Alliance of west Covina, California v. Lin Ma DDS Inc. (KC065263)

Cross-Defendants Lee & Associates Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. – City of Industry and Larimore’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Respondent: Cross-Complainant Lin Ma DDS Inc.

TENTATIVE RULING

Cross-Defendants Lee & Associates Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. – City of Industry and Larimore’s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication is DENIED.

PROCEDURAL DEFECT:
Cross-Defendants Lee & Associates, and Larimore (“L&A”)’s Notice and Separate Statement moves for summary adjudication of two issues, however both issues (as well as the supporting evidence), are identical. (See Notice and Cross-Defendants’ Separate Statement (XDSS 11-12).) This court will treat the issues as a single issue.

MERITS:

Cross-Defendants’ evidentiary objections are overruled.

A defendant moving for summary judgment/adjudication has met his burden of showing a cause of action has no merit if the defendant can show one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established. (CCP 437c(p)(2).)
Cross-defendants contend they are entitled to summary judgment and/or adjudication on the 5th cause of action for Equitable Indemnity because defendants cannot be held jointly liable for damages to Plaintiff Grace Chinese Alliance Church. (XDSS 11-12.) The Cross-Complaint is barred because the parties entered into the Purchase and Sale Agreement, which limits the time period for filing an action.

L&A submit the following evidence: Par. 24.2(d) of the Purchase and Sale Agreement provides: “The Parties agree that no lawsuit or other legal proceeding involving any breach of duty, error or omission relating to this transaction may be brought against Broker more than one year after the Date of Agreement.” (XDSS 2.) On 6/20/11, Cross-Complainant Lin Ma DSS Inc. (“Lin Ma”) received a letter from counsel for Cathay Bank (the predecessor-in-interest to Plaintiff Grace Chinese), advising Lin Ma that a fence and shed along the east property line of the Property was encroaching on the neighboring property (the Grace Chinese Property). (XDSS 3.) On 6/21/11, Lin Ma sent a letter advising Cathay Bank’s counsel that Cathay Bank could do whatever it wanted with the fence, so long as it was on Grace Chinese Property. (XDSS 5.) Lin Ma took no action to determine the boundary of the Property. (XDSS 6.) On 12/14/12, Grace Chinese filed a Complaint, and on 6/5/13, Lin Ma filed the Cross-Complaint. (XDSS 7-8.) L&A did not dissuade or prevent Lin Ma from commencing an action between June 2011 and June 2013. (XDSS 9-10.) The Complaint alleges a single cause of action for Quiet Title and Injunctive Relief. (XDSS 11-12.) The Court finds L&A has met its initial burden.

In Opposition, Lin Ma contends that the purchase agreement is void based on fraudulent inducement. Lin Ma submits the following evidence: The sellers, acting through their agents, misrepresented the property boundary between the two adjacent properties. (Disputed XDSS 1; Ma Decl., Pars. 3-7.) The agreement contains an exception if the broker is guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct. (Disputed XDSS 1.)

“A vendee who has been induced to purchase property by fraud or deceit may, upon discovery, either rescind the contract or allow it to stand and sue for damages. A single material misstatement knowingly made by a vendor and relied upon by his vendee will warrant a rescission with damages, and a misrepresentation as to boundaries is a material misrepresentation…. A prospective purchaser has a right to rely upon the representations of the seller concerning such existing facts and if the vendee suffers damage by reason of such representations, he has a good cause of action against the seller… Parol evidence of fraudulent representations is admissible as an exception to the parol evidence rule to show that a contract was induced by fraud.” (Richard v. Baker (1956) 141 Cal. App. 2d 857, 861-863.)

The court finds triable issues exist regarding the validity of the agreement, and whether Par. 24.2(d) applies to this action. Lin Ma has presented evidence, supporting L&A’s fraud in the inducement concerning its representations regarding the boundary line. (Disputed XDSS 1; Ma Decl., Pars. 3-7.) Although Lin Ma was later notified by Grace Chinese that the fence was not on the boundary line, such notice does not change whether the agreement itself was fraudulently induced. Further, the limitation period does not apply if the broker is guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct. (Disputed XDSS 2.) Triable issues exist regarding whether L&A committed gross negligence or willful misconduct.

Finally, L&A contends that because Grace Chinese is not seeking any monetary relief (but rather Quiet Title and Injunctive Relief), Lin Ma and L&A cannot be jointly liable for any damages. However, the issue of monetary damages does not invalidate Lin Ma’s claim for equitable indemnity if it is shown that L&A is a joint tortfeasor on Grace Chinese’s Quiet Title action, which prays for costs and other relief as the court deems proper. If Grace Chinese suffers any monetary injury as a result of the quiet title action, L&A and Lin Ma may be jointly liable.

Motion is DENIED.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Copy the code below to your web site.
x 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *