Sutton

Sutton v. Warner

Good Law
12 Cal. App. 4th 415·15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 632·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 22·93 Daily Journal DAR 556·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 295
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 12, 1993A053315California2,925 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kline, J.

Introduction

Arlene and Donald Warner appeal from a judgment granting specific performance of an oral agreement to purchase real property in favor of respondents Gloria and Kenneth Sutton. The Warners contend on appeal that substantial evidence does not support the judgment and that numerous errors of law compel reversal.

The Suttons cross-appeal the denial of relief on their cause of action for damages for alleged bad faith denial of contract. We shall affirm.

Statement of Facts

In 1983, Arlene Warner inherited a one-third interest in a home at 101 Molimo Street in San Francisco, and in a second property located in the Russian River area of California. She and her husband, Donald Warner, had no interest in retaining the Molimo Street property. They did, however, desire to retain the Russian River property. In order to obtain full title to both properties, the Warners bought out the other heirs, which required them to obtain a loan for $170,000. The Molimo Street property, having a value of approximately $185,000, could not support a loan in that amount by itself. Therefore, the Warners intended to pledge both properties as collateral for the $170,000 loan. They could…

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.