Landover Corp. v. Bellevue Master LLC

Good Law
252 F. App'x 800
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 29, 2007Nos. 06-35326, 06-35362California1,243 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Bellevue Master (“Bellevue”) appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment for Landover Corporation (“Landover”). Landover cross-appeals an entry of summary judgment against its claim for quantum meruit recovery. We affirm.

A. Novation

The district court did not err when it denied Bellevue’s affirmative defense of novation. A novation is the substitution of parties to a contract with the intent to discharge the initial debtor. Sutter v. Moore Inv. Co., 30 Wash. 333 , 70 P. 746, 747 (1902). In order to prove novation, a party must demonstrate (1) a mutual agreement; (2) among all parties concerned; (3) for the discharge of a valid existing obligation; (4) by the substitution of one party for another. MaePherson v. Franco, 34 Wash.2d 179 , 208 P.2d 641, 642 (1949). The evidence must show that “the parties intended the new contract to cancel and supersede the original contract, and equity will not assume such an intention unless the intent clearly appears or substantial justice requires it.” Mutual Reserve Ass’n v. Zeran, 152 Wash. 342 , 277 P. 984, 987 (1929).

Landover was not a party to the contract between Bellevue and the subsequent…

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.