West

West v. Superior Court

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 899·27 Cal. App. 4th 1625·34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 409·94 Daily Journal DAR 12426·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6790
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 1, 1994D020635California3,803 words

Opinion

Opinion

Work, J.

This action arises out of the sale of a house by Michael and Mary West to Wayne and Beverly Willerth. Willis M. Allen Company (Willis Allen) and two of its agents represented the parties in the sale. The Willerths sued the Wests, Willis Allen and the agents. After having prevailed on a summary judgment motion on the basis of a statute of limitations bar, the broker defendants settled with the Willerths for a waiver of costs. The Wests seek a writ of mandate after the court granted a motion for determination of good faith settlement and dismissed their cross-complaint for comparative indemnity and implied contractual indemnity.

We first conclude the court erred in finding the two-year statute of limitations for actions against real estate brokers for failing to disclose (Civ. Code, § 2079.4) applies to an implied contractual indemnity action between sellers and their broker. Having done so, we conclude there is no meaningful legal distinction between the instant case and Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 256 , 698 P.2d 159 ] (Tech-Bilt), in which the Supreme Court found a similar settlement did not constitute a good faith…

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.