Sean Anderson, et al. v. Michelle Belmonte

Case Name: Sean Anderson, et al. v. Michelle Belmonte, et al.

Case No.: 1-14-CV-268055

This action arises out of plaintiffs Sean Anderson and Katherine Anderson’s (“Plaintiffs”) unsuccessful attempt to purchase a home located at 2194 Coastland Drive, San Jose, California (the “Coastland Property”).

On November 13, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the operative complaint against their real estate agent and broker, defendants Ruby Ann Foote (“Ms. Foote”) and NRT West, Inc. (“NRT”), and their mortgage loan originator, defendants Michelle Belmonte (“Ms. Belmonte”) and American Financial Network, Inc. (“AFN”), alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty (against Ms. Foote and NRT); (2) constructive fraud (against Ms. Foote and NRT); (3) negligence (against Ms. Foote and NRT); (4) breach of fiduciary duty (against Ms. Belmonte and AFN); (5) negligent misrepresentation (against Ms. Belmonte and AFN); and (6) negligence (against Ms. Belmonte and AFN).

Currently before the Court is the motion for judgment on the pleadings by Ms. Belmonte and AFN (hereinafter “Defendants”) to the complaint. Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings to the fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action on the ground of failure to allege facts sufficient to constitute a claim. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 438.)

“Judgment on the pleadings is akin to a demurrer and is properly granted only if the complaint does not state facts sufficient to state a cause of action against that defendant. The grounds for the motion must appear on the face of the complaint, and in any matters subject to judicial notice. The court accepts as true all material factual allegations, giving them a liberal construction, but it does not consider conclusions of fact or law, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or judicially noticed facts.” (Shea Homes Limited Partnership v. County of Alameda (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1254 [internal citations omitted].)

The motion for judgment on the pleadings to the fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action is SUSTAINED, with 30 days’ leave to amend. Defendants persuasively argue and Plaintiffs concede that Plaintiffs entered into the contract to purchase the Coastland Property before Defendants made the alleged misrepresentation to Plaintiffs that they were approved for a loan to purchase the Coastland Property. (See Complaint, ¶¶ 13-14 [stating that Plaintiffs submitted an offer on the Coastland Property and listed their current home located at 1222 Prevost Street, San Jose, California (the “Prevost Property”) for sale on March 14, 2013], 16 [stating that Plaintiffs received an offer to purchase the Prevost Property on March 17, 2013], 15 [stating that the owners of the Coastland Property accepted Plaintiffs’ offer to purchase the Coastland Property on March 18, 2013], 17 [stating that Plaintiffs then signed and executed the purchase and sale agreements for the two properties], 12 [stating that on March 25, 2013, AFN approved Plaintiffs for a loan in order to purchase the Coastland Property and sent Plaintiffs a written loan approval]; see also Opp’n., p. 1:25-28 [stating that Plaintiffs entered into a contract to purchase the Coastland Property before Defendants made their misrepresentations to Plaintiffs].) Thus, Defendants’ conduct cannot be the proximate cause of the harm alleged and Plaintiffs’ decision to enter into the purchase and sale agreements was not made in reliance on the misrepresentation because Plaintiffs were already contractually obligated to purchase the Coastland Property and sell the Provest Property at the time the alleged misrepresentation was made. (See Mosier v. So. Calif. Physicians Ins. Exch. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1022, 1044 [setting forth the elements of breach of fiduciary duty, including causation]; see also Ragland v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 182, 196 [setting forth the elements of negligent misrepresentation, including justifiable reliance]; see also Truong v. Nguyen (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 865, 875 [setting forth the elements of negligence, including causation].)

Plaintiffs argue in their opposition that they relied on Defendants’ conduct to their detriment and Defendants’ conduct caused their damages because the purchase agreement for the Coastland Property contained certain financial contingencies that would have allowed them to terminate the purchase agreement if they were unable to obtain sufficient financing, but they released and/or waived the financial contingencies due to Defendants’ misrepresentation. (See Opp’n., p. 2:2-27.) However, the complaint does not contain any allegations regarding financial contingencies that were purportedly included in the purchase agreement or any allegations stating that Defendants’ conduct caused Plaintiffs to release the financial contingencies and otherwise breach the purchase agreement.

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 *