Lavi
Lavi v. Pelican Investment Corp.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Parviz Lavi appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Gal Lipkin and the Pelican Investment Corporation. We reverse. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we need not recount it here.
The only issue in this appeal is whether the district court correctly concluded that Parviz Lavi lacked standing to contest a foreclosure because he had previously conveyed his interest in certain real property, commonly referred by the parties as the “Loma Vista property” to his son.
It is undisputed that no formal deed to the Loma Vista property was executed or filed. Thus, the question is whether a settlement agreement between Parviz Lavi and Edward Lavi operated in itself to *924 transfer title to the Loma Vista property. When construing the meaning of a deed or contract, we consider “the situation of the parties, and the subject matter at the time of contracting ... the whole deed should be taken together, and, if possible, effect should be given to all of its parts.” Brannan v. Mesick, 10 Cal. 95, 106 (1858).
A careful examination of the record reveals that, although the present tense was used in some…