Wilson

Wilson v. Gentile

Good Law
10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 713·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 970·8 Cal. App. 4th 759·92 Daily Journal DAR 10861·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6860
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 4, 1992B057235California4,532 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

In this case we are asked to interpret a clause requiring an option to be exercised “within thirty (30) days prior to the expiration” of the option period. Appellant argues this language requires the option to be exercised “no later than” 30 days before the option period expires. We conclude this language instead allows the option to be exercised during the 30-day period immediately preceding the expiration of the option. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment which enforced an option exercised seven days before the option period expired.

Facts and Proceedings Below

On May 21, 1987, Brian Wilson (Wilson) entered into a “lease option” agreement with Von Gentile (Gentile) for a residence Gentile owned. This agreement provided for Wilson’s rental of this residence for a 20-month period—from June 1, 1987, through January 31, 1989. It also granted Wilson a six-month option—from June 1, 1987-November 30, 1987—to purchase this property for $850,000. The option clause required Wilson to exercise that right personally in writing “within thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of this option; . . .”

On November 24, 1987—seven days prior to the expiration of 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.