North Beach Partners v. Sollner CA1/4

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The facts of the underlying litigation are set forth in the opinion filed in NBPI. In summary, Sollner was part of an investment group with NBP that purchased the six-unit Clay Street property in 2004. (NBPI, supra, at p. 1.) Under the tenancy in common agreement between the parties, Sollner had exclusive rights to units 1 and 4, but NBP also retained an interest in unit 4 under a profit-sharing agreement with Sollner. (Id. at pp. 1–2.) In 2008, Sollner and NBP became embroiled in a series of legal disputes concerning unit 4 and another property and they eventually entered into a settlement under which NBP agreed to purchase Sollner’s interest in unit 4. (Id. at p. 2.) NBP subsequently sued Sollner to rescind that part of the settlement agreement under which it purchased unit 4, alleging that Sollner failed to comply with the Subdivided Lands Act because he had not obtained a public report. (Ibid.) We affirmed the trial court’s findings that the Subdivided Lands Act did not apply because the property was transferred through a settlement agreement, and that NBP was not entitled to rescission. (Id. at pp. 2–3.) The Clay Street property transaction resulted in…