Tindell

Tindell v. Murphy

Bad Law
22 Cal. App. 5th 1239·232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 448
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 6, 2018C081424California5,538 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Raye, J.

*1241 Plaintiffs Randy and Linda Tindell bought a single family manufactured home from defendant Linda Murphy in 2005 for $320,000. Defendant Christine Bradley provided the appraisal. In 2009 the Tindells were unable to refinance the mortgage because it is a manufactured home, not a modular home. The Tindells filed a fourth amended complaint alleging Murphy and Bradley failed to disclose defects in the property and acted in concert with others in order to conceal these defects and profit from the sale of the property. The trial court sustained Murphy's demurrer without leave to amend. Subsequently, the court granted Bradley's motion for summary judgment. The Tindells appeal, challenging the court's sustaining of Murphy's demurrer and the granting of Bradley's summary judgment. We shall affirm both judgments.

*1242 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Susanville Real Estate, agent Kari Moore, and real estate broker John Shaw listed a property owned by Murphy for *451 sale in December 2004. 1 The listing stated the approximate age of the property was 26 years and described the construction as "Manufactured." The Tindells made arrangements to see the property and subsequently made an…

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.