Simonelli

Johnson v. Simonelli

Bad Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 626·231 Cal. App. 3d 105·282 Cal. Rptr. 205·91 Daily Journal DAR 7015·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4494
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 12, 1991C009062California2,311 words

Opinion

Opinion

Marler, J.

Plaintiff, Sherman Johnson, appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendants, James J. Simonelli and Simonelli, Simonelli & Carash, a professional law corporation, after the trial court determined that plaintiff’s action for attorney malpractice was barred by the statute of limitations. We shall affirm.

Facts

Plaintiff retained defendants on June 1, 1981, to represent him in connection with the sale of his business, Vogue Cleaners. Defendants prepared a document dated August 1, 1981, and entitled agreement of sale and sale of assets of Vogue Cleaners, which provided plaintiff would sell his laundry and dry cleaning business to Rollie M. Pennington and Andrew Piegnet, Jr., for $125,000. A portion of the purchase price was paid in cash and the buyers executed a promissory note for the remaining balance of $117,000. The contract provided the promissory note would be secured by the equipment of Vogue Cleaners, the equipment and inventory of St. Mark’s Dry Cleaners, which was owned by Pennington, and a deed of trust on Piegnet’s house at 617 Kermit Court. At the time of the sale, plaintiff was aware there were two prior trust deeds on Piegnet’s house and that there was…

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.