Jue

Jue v. Patton

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 274·33 Cal. App. 4th 456·39 Cal. Rptr. 2d 364·95 Daily Journal DAR 3814·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2224
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 24, 1995A064503California1,546 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perley, J.

Mike Patton and Margaret Tam (appellants) appeal from an order denying attorney fees pursuant to a real estate sales contract. They contend that as prevailing parties they are entitled to attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032 and 1033.5. We affirm.

Factual Background

This litigation arises from a dispute concerning the purchase and sale of apartment buildings pursuant to a written agreement. Respondents were the purchasers of the buildings while Tam was the seller and Patton was Tam’s agent under the agreement. Respondents financed the purchase of the buildings by assuming a loan held by Bay View Federal Savings (Bay View). In April 1992, Bay View filed the underlying complaint in this action for judicial foreclosure based on the allegation that respondents failed to make the required payments on the loan. In June 1992, respondents filed a cross-complaint against appellants alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation and other tort claims as well as requesting rescission and equitable indemnity. In May and June of 1993, the parties discussed settling the cross-complaint. The parties were unable to settle the matter and subsequently,…

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.