De Anza Enterrprises v. Johnson

Good Law
104 Cal. App. 4th 1307·128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 749·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 5269·2003 Daily Journal DAR 88·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 81
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 31, 2002H022088California5,953 words

Opinion

Opinion

Elia, J.

After three and a half years of litigation, the trial court ordered specific performance of a term in a joint venture agreement allowing plaintiff Wade Hover to purchase the interest of defendant Joseph C. Johnson in the property owned by them as part of their joint venture, De Anza Enterprises. On appeal, Hover disputes the purchase price of Johnson’s interest, contending that the appraised value of the property should have been determined as of the date Johnson defaulted on his contractual obligation, the date Hover declared an intention to buy out Johnson, or at the latest, the date Hover brought this lawsuit. Hover further argues that the court failed to credit him with rent received by Johnson before and after the effective date of the transfer. We find no error and affirm the judgment.

Background

Although we have reviewed the entire record of the lengthy proceedings below, we will set forth only those facts necessary to the resolution of this appeal. Because plaintiff does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s factual findings, we adopt those findings in describing the context of the dispute before us.

Hover and Johnson…

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.