Calemine

Calemine v. Samuelson

Good Law
171 Cal. App. 4th 153·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 174·89 Cal. Rptr. 3d 495
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 17, 2009B194461California4,975 words

Opinion

Opinion

Todd, J.

Plaintiffs and appellants Larry and Camille Calemine appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant and respondent Walter Samuelson (Samuelson). The trial court ruled that Samuelson, the seller of a condominium purchased by appellants, met his burden to show the absence of a triable issue of fact concerning his disclosure of facts relating to water intrusion.

We reverse. While the evidence established that Samuelson disclosed the existence of previous water intrusion, it further established that he did not disclose the existence of two lawsuits relating to that water intrusion. A triable issue of fact remained as to whether the prior litigation was a material fact which should have been disclosed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Condominium’s Water Intrusion Problems.

In February 1983, Samuelson and his wife became the initial owners of a three-story condominium, unit 5, located on Victory Boulevard in Woodland Hills (condominium), in building 2 of a development known as Jared Court. The lower level of the condominium was comprised of a three-car garage and a carpeted and windowless “bonus room” that Samuelson used as a sewing room and office.…

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.