Ge Lee v. George Tong Lee

Good Law
175 Cal. App. 4th 1553·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1255·97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 516
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 29, 2009F056107California2,171 words

Opinion

Opinion

Levy, J.

Appellants, George Tong Lee (George) and Kathy Maiker Lee (Kathy), challenge the trial court’s finding that their interest in property owned by various members of the Lee family was validly transferred to respondent, Fue Sue Lee (Fue Sue). Appellants acknowledge that, following their request that the property be sold, they received $50,000 from George’s mother and brother pursuant to an oral agreement. Appellants assert this payment was a no-interest loan. In contrast, George’s mother and brother contend they bought George and Kathy’s interest. Four years after receiving the payment, George and Kathy executed and delivered a quitclaim deed that transferred their interest in the property to Fue Sue.

Appellants argue the sale of their property interest violated the statute of frauds and therefore is invalid. Appellants further contend that the quitclaim deed was not sufficient to take the transaction outside the statute of frauds. Additionally, appellants assert that the trial court erred when it failed to exclude certain promissory notes that were produced only a few days before trial.

As discussed below, the deed was an executed contract and, as such, validly…

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.