Oren Realty & Development Co. v. Superior Court

Respondent court denied a motion for summary judgment. We issued an alternative writ of mandate on application of petitioners based on our conclusion the subject matter detailed in the application is typical of numerous similar situations which impel disposition on the basis of the statute of frauds (Civ. Code, § 1624) and requested respondent court to justify said denial.

Respondent court denied the motion on the ground that the evidence raised a triable issue of fact, which if found in favor of real parties in interest (RPIs) would equate with an equitable estoppel. (Seymour v. Oelrichs (1909) 156 Cal. 782, 794 [ 106 P. 88 ]; Associated Creditors’ Agency v. Haley Land Co. (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 610 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 1 ].)

For the purpose of this decision we assume the truth of the evidence (recited below) upon which RPIs rely to support their claim of equitable estoppel as supplemented only by the uncontradicted facts in the record and conclude there is no basis for the application of that principle.

Some days prior to January 22, 1978, RPIs Edward and Eileen Ku and Walter and Regina Yuan (Mrs. Ku and Mr. Yuan are brother and sister) contacted petitioner Jack Tobin,…