Avila

Avila v. Lin CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 17, 2014G049947California9,326 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ikola, J.

FACTS

Given the jury’s findings, one document is conspicuous by its absence. There is no written agreement (or even a business plan) setting forth the obligations of the parties with regard to the agricultural business at the center of this case. Instead, the parties’ understandings concerning the nature of the farming operations on land owned by Lin are all based on oral conversations.

2 On the other hand, a promissory note and accompanying deed of trust are in the record. In the note, Avila promised to pay Lin $500,000 with interest from December 12, 2008, “for value received.” In the deed of trust, Avila pledged as security for the promissory note a Chino, California real property (the Avila Property). In their testimony, the parties’ expressed differing views concerning the purpose and meaning of these documents. The jury found there was no loan. And as part of the judgment, the court quieted title in the name of Avila, declaring void and cancelling the Avila Property deed of trust.

Yang Testimony Although unmarried, Yang and Avila have lived together for 20 years and have two children together. In 2007, Yang’s family lived at the Avila Property. Yang worked as a licensed…

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.