Nosrati

INTRODUCTION

M. Saeid Nosrati and Nooshin Haroonian sued Manuel Gonzalez and Sheila Cronen (also known as Sheila Gonzalez; for simplicity, we refer to Gonzalez and Cronen as the Gonzalezes) alleging the Gonzalezes failed to disclose defects in a home they sold to Nosrati and Haroonian. Shortly before trial the Gonzalezes accepted Nosrati’s demand for rescission of the purchase agreement, and the trial court granted the Gonzalezes’ motion to rescind the agreement. Following the trial, the court awarded Nosrati and Haroonian consequential damages and, under Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a), prejudgment interest on the purchase price from the date the court ordered rescission.1 Nosrati and Haroonian contend the trial court should have awarded prejudgment interest from the date Nosrati served the original complaint, which gave the Gonzalezes notice of rescission. The Gonzalezes argue that an exception in section 3287, subdivision (a), precluded Nosrati and Haroonian from recovering prejudgment interest prior to the date the court ordered rescission. The Gonzalezes also ask us to dismiss Nosrati and Haroonian’s appeal under the disentitlement doctrine. We conclude that the…