Edwards

Edwards v. Centex Real Estate Corp.

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 145·53 Cal. App. 2d 15·53 Cal. App. 4th 15·61 Cal. Rptr. 2d 518·97 Daily Journal DAR 2147
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 27, 1997Docket Nos. A074435, A074430California10,058 words

Opinion

Opinion

Walker, J.

In these consolidated appeals, plaintiffs and appellants appeal from adverse judgments in their action for damages based on alleged fraud, conspiracy and willful misconduct in the design, construction, inspection and repair of the concrete foundations underlying their homes in Foster City, and for rescission of settlement agreements and releases made in connection with their initial claims for repair of those foundations. The trial court granted motions in limine by respondents Centex Real Estate Corporation (Centex) and Donald H. Hillebrandt (Hillebrandt) pursuant to the litigation privilege of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b) and the parol evidence rule, to exclude all evidence of oral and written communications they made in response to appellants’ reports of damage to their home foundations, leading to the initial settlement of their dispute and execution of releases. Appellants entered into a stipulated judgment pursuant to Building Industry Assn. v. City of Camarillo (1986) 41 Cal.3d 810, 815-817 [ 226 Cal.Rptr. 81 , 718 P.2d 68 ], in order to obtain immediate appellate review of the issues raised by the trial court’s grant of the motions in limine. Appellants…

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.