Wentland

Wentland v. Wass

Good Law
126 Cal. App. 4th 1484·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 274·2005 Daily Journal DAR 2180·25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 109·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1639
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 22, 2005C045239California3,964 words

Opinion

Opinion

Morrison, J.

Cross-complainants Charles Wentland, Wentland Family Investment Group and John Snider (collectively Wentland) appeal from a judgment dismissing their cross-complaint after the trial court sustained the demurrer of cross-defendants Warren Wass, Walter Reiss, and Walter Reiss, trustee of the Walter E. Reiss Defined Benefit Plan (collectively Wass and Reiss) on the ground that the cross-complaint was barred by the litigation privilege. Wentland contends the trial court erred because the litigation privilege does not apply to an action for breach of contract. Wass and Reiss respond the trial court’s ruling was correct and request sanctions for a frivolous appeal. We conclude the policies behind the litigation privilege are not furthered by applying the privilege in this breach of contract case. We reverse the judgment and deny sanctions.

BACKGROUND

This litigation arose out of several real estate investment partnerships managed by Wentland. In 1992, Wass and Reiss and others (plaintiffs) brought an action for an accounting in three partnerships, Consolidated Investors, Avenue Investments, and Kettlemen Lane Investors.

As to Consolidated Investors, Wentland moved for…

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.