Bello

Grubb & Ellis Co. v. Bello

Good Law
19 Cal. App. 4th 231·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 1002·23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 281·93 Daily Journal DAR 12709·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7473
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 5, 1993B063118California2,924 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rappe, J.

Introduction

Michael Bello and M.B. Contractors, Inc. (Bello) appeal from a judgment confirming an arbitration award (Code Civ. Proc., § 1294) in favor of Grubb & Ellis Company (Grubb). We affirm.

Facts

Bello entered into exclusive listing agreements with Grubb, a real estate broker, to sell real property located at 1041 and 1047 West Gladstone in San Dimas, California. Identical provisions in both listing agreements provided for arbitration of “[a]ny dispute or claim in law or equity arising out of this contract or any resulting transaction.” Each agreement contained the statutorily mandated “arbitration of disputes” and “notice” provisions immediately followed by separate spaces “for the parties to indicate their assent or nonassent to the arbitration provision.” (§ 1298, subd. (c).) Although Bello initialed each arbitration provision, Grubb failed to do so. Bello later leased the properties in violation of these agreements. Grubb consequently sought its real estate commissions.

Grubb made a demand for arbitration requesting relief of approximately $45,000. On July 8, 1991, Bello appeared, without counsel, before the arbitrator and objected to the hearing on the…

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.