Kang

Epa Real Estate Partnership v. Hee Duk Kang

Good Law
12 Cal. App. 4th 171·15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 209·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1515·93 Daily Journal DAR 325·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 174
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 11, 1992H008838California1,822 words

Opinion

Opinion

Premo, J.

This is an appeal after a judgment entered in favor of defendants Hee Duk Kang and Inja Kang (hereafter, collectively, Kang), who purchased an apartment complex from plaintiffs EPA Real Estate Partnership and Jack Horton (a partner of EPA Real Estate Partnership) (hereafter, collectively, EPA). On appeal, EPA contends the trial court misapplied the parol evidence rule to exclude evidence of a prior agreement whereby Hee Duk Kang had promised to indemnify EPA if it should incur liability to the listing agent for selling the property during the listing period. As we explain below, we conclude the trial court did not err in excluding this evidence.

Background

EPA owned Grand Security, an apartment complex in East Palo Alto. In early June 1988, EPA signed a listing agreement with Feher Young and Associates Commercial Brokerage, Ltd. (hereafter, Feher Young) to sell Grand Security for $2.5 million. The listing agreement, which expired at midnight on August 15, 1988, contained a provision entitling Feher Young to a 6 percent commission if EPA sold or contracted to sell the property within the listing period.

On July 18,1988, Hee Duk Kang submitted a written offer directly to…

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.