Mink

Mink v. Superior Court

Bad Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 75·2 Cal. App. 4th 1338·4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 195·92 Daily Journal DAR 1150·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 734
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 23, 1992G011930California1,531 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wallin, J.

Larry Mink, Charles Wentworth and Penelope Wentworth (collectively Mink and Wentworth) petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the superior court to grant their motions for reconsideration of, and relief from, its order granting summary adjudication and dismissing several causes of action on the grounds they were time barred. After the dismissal, Mink and Wentworth discovered that because of an intervening weekend and court holiday the complaint was timely filed. We grant the writ.

Mink and Wentworth are some of the plaintiffs in an action against Arnel Development Company, Inc., the developer of the tract including Mink’s and Wentworth’s homes in the City of Orange. The underlying complaint was filed on January 20, 1987. A notice of completion for the development was filed on February 1, 1977. Certificates of final inspection for the tract were filed by the city on January 31, 1977, and February 22, 1977. Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15 provides that an action for damages to real property against the developer of the property must be filed within 10 years after the earlier of the date of final inspection, the date of recordation of a valid notice of completion,…

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.