Palomar Grading & Paving, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Good Law
178 Cal. Rptr. 3d 822·2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 927·230 Cal. App. 4th 686
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 14, 2014Nos. G049907, G049910California2,074 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Bedsworth, J.

I.-II. *

III. DISCUSSION

A.-I. *

J. Did the Trial Court Err in Awarding the Lien Claimants Prejudgment Interest at 10 Percent, as Distinct from 7 Percent, as Against the Noncontracting, Innocent Owners? Yes.

This is the only part of this opinion certified for publication, so we set forth a brief précis of the relevant facts for the benefit of those readers who will not have access to the balance of the opinion; In 2007, a developer named Inland engaged a general contractor called 361 to develop a Kohl’s department store and surrounding property on a tract in Beaumont. The construction lender was Wachovia Bank. General contractor 361 contracted with, among others, Palomar Grading & Paving, Inc. (Palomar Grading) and Cass to do infrastructural work benefitting the tract. As it turned out, both Kohl’s and Wachovia ended up owning parcels in the tract. Neither, however, ever entered a contract with the two subcontractors. Palomar Grading and Cass were not paid for substantial portions of their work, and brought *689 successful actions to foreclose their mechanic’s liens. 24 The trial judge awarded them prejudgment interest at 10 percent, 25 and now Kohl’s and Wells Fargo…

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.