Nakashima

FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima

Good Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 722·231 Cal. App. 3d 367·282 Cal. Rptr. 508·91 Daily Journal DAR 7396·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4707
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 19, 1991C003167California13,709 words

Opinion

Opinion

Blease, J.

Opinion on Rehearing

A1 Nakashima and George Price (defendants) appeal from a summary judgment granted plaintiffs FPI Development, Inc. (FPI) and K. W. Hunt in an action on a promissory note.

The case tenders two issues of importance to summary judgment proceedings. The first issue concerns the application of the parol evidence rule in such a proceeding. The second issue concerns the use of a defensive showing to amplify a defectively pled answer in framing the issues for summary judgment.

The note was created as part of a complicated set of real estate development transactions. Kenneth Earp obtained an option (the Earp option) to purchase a golf course. Plaintiffs obtained an option (the FPI option) to purchase the Earp option from Earp. They assigned their rights in the FPI option to defendants in return for execution of a promissory note. The note was not paid according to its terms. Defendants claim the note is not enforceable. The dispute gave rise to this action.

In their complaint plaintiffs alleged that defendants made and delivered a promissory note and that it was not paid. Defendants answered with a general denial and a laundry list of affirmative defenses…

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.