Pal

facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, we conclude under the circumstances here, where the facts alleged by plaintiff may be actionable under certain legal theories not identified in the FAC, the court erred in denying plaintiff leave to amend. We recognize neither the FAC nor the briefing is a model of clarity and commend the trial court for its patient parsing of the pleading and its detailed orders. Nevertheless, reading the FAC liberally, as we must (see C & H. Foods Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 1055, 1062), we understand the gist of plaintiff’s claims to be as follows: Plaintiff and defendant entered into a promissory note and security agreement (the loan agreement) whereby defendant loaned plaintiff money to purchase a boat, secured by the boat as collateral. Thereafter, plaintiff made his required payments under the loan agreement until defendant willfully refused to transfer title documents for the boat to the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), as plaintiff repeatedly requested. Defendant’s conduct caused plaintiff to suffer harm in that he was deprived of the ability to register and use the boat in California. Defendant then…