Steiner

Steiner v. Thexton

Good Law
163 Cal. App. 4th 359·77 Cal. Rptr. 3d 632
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 28, 2008C054605California8,858 words

Opinion

Opinion

Law Office of Klaus J. Kolb and Klaus J. Kolb for Intervener and Appellant.

Law Office of David L. Price and David L. Price for Defendant and Respondent.

SIMS, Acting P. J.—

In this action seeking specific performance of a real estate sales agreement, the hopeful buyer, plaintiff Martin A. Steiner, and his partial assignee, intervener Siddiqui Family Partnership, (collectively, plaintiffs) appeal from a judgment, following a bench trial, entered in favor of the property owner, defendant Paul Thexton, as trustee for the FAS Family Trust (Thexton). Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in construing the contract as an unenforceable option to buy the property, void for lack of consideration, and in awarding attorney's fees to defendant. We shall affirm the judgment and the attorney's fee award.

On October 20, 2004, Steiner filed a complaint seeking specific performance of a "REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT."

Thexton filed an answer, asserting a variety of defenses, including a defense that the "contract" was a disguised option, void for lack of consideration. [1]

On March 21, 2006, Siddiqui, with leave of court, filed a complaint in intervention, based on Steiner's partial…

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.