East-Bratt v. Fouke

Filed 8/15/06 East-Bratt v. Fouke CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

Appellant Kellie East-Bratt brought this action seeking, inter alia, specific performance of an oral agreement for the sale of residential real property owned by respondent Wilma L. Fouke.[1] The trial court entered summary judgment for respondents, concluding that appellant's contract claim was barred by the statute of frauds, and her other related claims were without merit. Appellant contends that this was error. We disagree and affirm.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This appeal arises from an oral agreement, never reduced to a signed writing, concerning the proposed sale to appellant of respondent Wilma Fouke's residence, located at One Roanoke Street in the Glen Park area of San Francisco.

In 2003, appellant rented a bedroom for $600 a month in the home of respondent Wilma Fouke. Fouke, who had lived in the house for decades, was in her late eighties, with failing eyesight and various health problems. Fouke had intended to share the house with appellant, but never did so due to her failing health. In April of 2004, appellant and respondent discussed selling the house to appellant at a price of $650,000, based in part on an appraisal performed in the previous year. As noted above, this oral agreement, which is the genesis of this litigation, was never reduced to writing.[2]

Wilma Fouke's daughter, respondent Diane Fouke Galliano, did not initially object to the proposed sale, and sought help from a family friend, Joe Ramos, who was a real estate professional, to assist in drawing up the necessary papers. Ramos refused because he felt the proposed deal did not properly protect the interests of the elderly Wilma Fouke.

Respondent Galliano then sought advice from another real estate professional, Victor Makras, who advised her that the house was actually worth considerably more that the proposed sale price, possibly as much as $850,000.

In early May, Wilma Fouke advised appellant that she had decided not to proceed with the proposed sale.[3] Fouke told appellant that Fouke was sorry, and that Fouke still wanted to sell the house to appellant, but Fouke said her children (also respondents herein) were â€