BEHNIWAL

BEHNIWAL v. Mix

Good Law
133 Cal. App. 4th 1027·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1693·2005 Daily Journal DAR 12877·35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 320·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9467
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 2005G034074California8,160 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sills, J.

This is a statute of frauds case with attendant fallout involving attorney fees. It involves two appeals: one by the disappointed would-be buyers of an Irvine condo, Mandeep and Amandeep Behniwal, asserting that the trial court should have granted them specific performance; the other by the seller’s agent and her realty company challenging attorney fees assessed against them at the conclusion of the litigation. Ironically, the fee award is in favor of the losers in their quest for specific performance, the Behniwals.

Both appeals will result in reversals of the relevant portions of the judgment. On the statute of frauds problem, let us cut to the chase: There is no question that there was, in substance, a deal between the owners of the condo, Gene C. and Jo Anne Mix, and the Behniwals, to sell the condo for $540,000. Both parties acted like there was such a contract until Gene Mix manifested some health problems, prompting the Mixes to want out of the deal. (This is the version adopted by the trial court. A more cynical version has been proffered by the Behniwals, namely that the Mixes wanted out when they received a backup offer for $565,000 and knew they could get at…

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.