Gill
Gill v. Gill CA3
Opinion
Opinion
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
We dispense with a detailed recitation of the facts underlying the merits of the lawsuit as those facts are unnecessary to our resolution of this appeal. Suffice it to say that Shahgir and Satnam reached an agreement, the terms of which are in dispute, whereby Satnam would purchase real property on which Shahgir would construct a residential home for a certain dollar amount per square foot. Once the home was sold, Satnam (and later, Satnam and Dinesh) would pay Shahgir one-third of the net profits from the sale. Shahgir, Satnam, and Dinesh subsequently agreed to a similar arrangement for the construction and sale of a second home on a neighboring lot.
2 Although construction was eventually completed on the first home (which was sold to Rakesh and then re-sold), and on the second home (which was sold to Kang and then re-sold), numerous issues arose between the parties regarding payment of construction costs and monies owed as a result of the sale of the two homes. In September 2004, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging various causes of action against Satnam and Dinesh (Complaint). In November 2005, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint alleging contract…