Slavin

Slavin v. Trout

Good Law
18 Cal. App. 4th 1536·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 972·23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 219·93 Daily Journal DAR 12356·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7286
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 27, 1993B061478California2,548 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

In this action by a secured lender against a real estate appraiser for professional negligence, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c)) on the ground the plaintiff’s action is barred by the two-year statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 339, subd. 1.)

There is no dispute as to the underlying dispositive facts. The issue on appeal is the date the cause of action accrued, which on undisputed facts is a question of law as to which summary judgment is appropriate. (E.g., Johnson v. Simonelli (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 105, 109 [ 282 Cal.Rptr. 205 ].)

We reverse, concluding that the plaintiff secured lender did not sustain actual and appreciable harm from his reliance on the defendant’s appraisal, so as to commence the running of the statute of limitations, until plaintiff acquired the property at a foreclosure sale following the borrower’s default.

Facts

Plaintiff and appellant Theodore Slavin, an investor, had an ongoing relationship with Allstate Home Loans, Inc., a licensed real estate broker, under which he lent money secured by second trust deeds on real property. Defendant and respondent Val Trout II…

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.