Cantley

Cantley v. Wecker CA2/8

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 7, 2013B241438California3,323 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

In 2007, James Wecker and David Wilson (collectively Wecker) sold a single family residential property on Queens Court north of Sunset Boulevard to Beckett and Kirsten Cantley (the Cantleys). In 2009, the Cantleys served Wecker with a notice of rescission based on an alleged failure to disclose that a part of a walkway and stairs from the street to the residence on the Queens Court property encroached across a boundary line and rested on land owned by an adjoining neighbor. The encroachment measured roughly 78 feet long and averaged about 1.5 feet in width. In June 2009, the Cantleys submitted a statement of claim in arbitration under the terms of the purchase and sale agreement with Wecker. The arbitrator found that Wecker negligently failed to make a material disclosure – the encroachment – in the course of the sale of the Queens Court property to the Cantleys. The arbitrator ruled that the negligent misrepresentation justified the remedy of rescission. Wecker advised the arbitrator that she had made a mathematical error in the measuring the extent of the encroachment. The arbitrator conceded a mathematical error, corrected her miscalculation, and then

1 We highlight…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.