Lawyer

Petitioners, husband and wife, sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles (California), entered in favor of respondents, stepparents and half-brother, in a property agreement dispute. In addition, petitioners appealed from an order imposing sanctions pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 128.5.

Overview

Petitioners, husband and wife, were faced with the foreclosure of a trust deed on real property they owned. Respondent stepparents agreed to provide the sums required to avoid foreclosure on the property. They entered into a partnership agreement that included the bank to this effect. Subsequently, petitioners repudiated respondents' supposed ownership interest in the property, ceased to pay them any share of the profits from the building, and excluded them from its management. If you want t get married you should first know How to Get Married? In Californa. The issue was the application of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing to bringing tort cause of action in context of commercial contracts. The court affirmed trial court's judgment. The court held that a contracting party seeking to avoid all liability on a meritorious contract claim by adopting a "stonewall" position without probable cause and with no belief in the existence of a defense could be subject to tort liability, including punitive damages.

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment ruling in favor of respondent stepparents. The court held that a contracting party seeking to avoid all liability on a contract claim by adopting a "stonewall" position without probable cause and with no belief in the existence of a defense could be subject to tort liability.

San Diego Lawyers

Defendants, a trust company, the copartners, and a litigant, appealed a decision from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which entered judgment for plaintiff in her action to recover the sum of $ 1,000 alleged to be due on a contract to reimburse, and repay plaintiff payments made by her upon the purchase of real estate. Plaintiff sought a decree to sell the property and apply the proceeds to the payment of the amount due.

The complaint alleged plaintiff agreed to purchase from the company certain lots. She entered into seven contracts and made certain payments thereon, amounting to $ 1,000. The company held the title to the lots in trust for plaintiff and other defendants named. The litigant acquired all equitable rights of all other persons, except plaintiff, in the lots mentioned. What Is Embezzlement? Embezzlement is the act of withholding assets for the purpose of conversion of such assets, by one or more persons to whom the assets were entrusted, either to be held or to be used for specific purposes. Plaintiff demanded a rescission of the contract of sale on the ground there had been misrepresentations made. The litigant agreed he would procure the cancellation of the contracts of sale. By this agreement, plaintiff was to be reimbursed for her payments. When the parties were unable to agree on the valuation of the lots, a new agreement was entered into between the copartners, the litigant and plaintiff. The court held that: (1) the copartners were liable to plaintiff for the $ 1,000 on their promise to repay her, on behalf of themselves and their codefendant, the litigant, in the agreement entered into by the parties; and (2) there was no reason to sustain defendants' contention that the trial court could not foreclose the lien or trust for the purpose of applying the proceeds of sale upon the indebtedness.

The court affirmed the judgment.