Crevier

Crevier v. Sullinger

Good Law
57 F. App'x 319
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 4, 2003No. 01-56359; D.C. No. CV-99-01554-GLTCalifornia964 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiffs Joseph and Diane Crevier appeal the district court’s denial of relief on their Truth-In-Lending Act (TILA) and usury claims, as well as the court’s award of $100,000 in punitive damages in favor of defendant Helene Sullinger on her counterclaim for fraud. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

I.

There was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s finding that the Crevi-ers engaged in fraud. Under California law, fraud occurs when a party makes an intentional misstatement of a material fact that induces reasonable reliance. Lazar v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.4th 631 , 49 Cal. Rptr.2d 377 , 909 P.2d 981, 984 (1996). Sul-linger testified that she would not have entered into the loan agreement with the Creviers had she known about the unrecorded reconveyance. There was ample evidence in the record indicating that the Creviers intentionally did not disclose the existence of the unrecorded reconveyance. Because Sullinger reasonably relied upon the Creviers’ purposeful misrepresentation of a material fact in deciding to lend money to the Creviers, the district court correctly found that she was a victim of fraud.

II.

The fraud was sufficient…

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.