Coppinger

Coppinger v. Superior Court

Good Law
134 Cal. App. 3d 883·185 Cal. Rptr. 24·1982 Cal. App. LEXIS 1859
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 10, 1982Civ. 27814California2,840 words

Opinion

Opinion

Trotter, J.

Diana and Donald Coppinger seek review by writ of mandate of an order denying their motion to expunge a notice of lis pendens recorded by Diane McKay. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 409.4.) For convenience, the Coppingers are referred to as defendants rather than petitioners and real party in interest McKay is referred to as plaintiff.

Plaintiff has not made a return to the petition, but a writ petition “cannot be granted by default.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1088.) In the absence of a return, all proper allegations of the petition are deemed admitted and only legal issues remain for decision. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094. See Rodriguez v. Municipal Court (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 521, 526-527 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 45 ].) Plaintiff has submitted points and authorities addressing the legal issues.

In 1980 defendants were the owners of a one-story stucco frame residence at 16 Longstreet in Irvine, built within the preceding three years by Warmington Development, Inc. In June 1980, a termite inspection disclosed that termites were entering the wall between the living and dining rooms by a crack in the concrete slab. The infestation was treated by drilling through the slab and injecting chemicals…

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.