Patacsil

Patacsil v. Perez CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 5, 2022C093017California5,115 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Events Leading to the Entry of a 2015 Settlement Agreement

In May 2010, Henry Perez and Ernesto Patacsil, Jr., entered into a residential purchase agreement under the terms of which Patacsil would purchase certain real property from Perez. Both parties testified the purchase price of the property was $800,000, and that Perez made an initial payment of $75,000. Based on the purchase agreement documents admitted at trial, it appears the parties contemplated that Patacsil would pay off the remaining $725,000 due with monthly payments of $8,000, interest accruing on the balance at a rate of 5.5 percent, and a balloon payment due within five years of the close of escrow. Patacsil testified he did not secure other financing to purchase the property because he did not qualify for financing at the time of the 2010 purchase. Both parties testified that Perez paid another $75,000 towards the purchase price of the property over the succeeding years. At some point after they executed the 2010 purchase agreement, Patacsil and Perez had a disagreement concerning the terms of the transaction, and in August 2014, they entered into a Settlement Agreement and…

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.