Padgett

Padgett v. Phariss

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 366·54 Cal. App. 4th 1270·63 Cal. Rptr. 2d 373·97 Daily Journal DAR 5949·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3492
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 14, 1997D022333California4,942 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

Construction defect litigation seems as common as crabgrass in planned unit developments in California. Is it so common that a real estate agent participating in a buy-sell transaction for a residence located within a planned unit development has a duty; without more, based on statute or common law, to inquire of the subject homeowners association whether (1) there are construction defects at the common areas of the property or (2) there is pending or proposed litigation concerning those defects? (Civ. Code, § 2079 et seq.) Here, the trial court said no, granting summary judgment to the buyers’ and the sellers’ real estate agents and brokers on the plaintiff buyers’ complaint against them on various fraud and negligence theories, arising out of the buyers’ purchase of property in a development which had these problems. On this record, the trial court correctly analyzed the duty issues as a matter of law and we affirm the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

On July 23, 1991, plaintiffs and appellants Gordon J. Padgett and Mary E. Padgett (collectively Padgett) entered into a real estate contract to buy a residence in the Stone Point development for $207,500.…

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.