Gabric v. Fields

Filed 3/16/06 Gabric v. Fields CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Joseph R. Kalin, Judge. Affirmed.

Finer, Kim & Stearns and Robert B. Parsons for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of John M. Boyko and John M. Boyko for Defendant and Respondent Joseph Gregory Fields.

Law Offices of Stanley T. Denis and Stanley T. Denis for Defendant and Respondent Family Financial Group.

* * * * * *

Appellant George S. Gabric (Gabric) appeals from a judgment entered following a court trial in favor of respondents Joseph Gregory Fields (Fields) and Family Financial Group (Family Financial) on Gabric's action for specific enforcement of a contract for the purchase of real property, damages and intentional interference with an economic relationship.^[1] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

CONTENTION

Gabric's sole contention is that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that Gabric did not intend to acquire the property in question for use as his personal residence.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The record shows that Gabric and Fields were friends for many years. At a Thanksgiving dinner in 2002 at the home of Fields and his wife, Dierdre Fields (the Fields home), Gabric learned that foreclosure proceedings had commenced on the Fields home because the Fieldses were behind on the mortgage payments. Gabric indicated that he would try to help the Fieldses. Several weeks later, the Fieldses visited Gabric at his office to follow up on Gabric's offer to help them. Gabric suggested that he purchase the Fields home. On March 1, 2003, the Fieldses again visited Gabric's office. After some discussions, they agreed on a purchase price of $200,000 for the Fields home, which would net the Fieldses between $120,000 and $130,000. Gabric prepared a contract, which he and Fields executed that same day, for the purchase and sale of the Fields home. According to Fields's testimony, he understood the document he signed to be a proposal, not a contract. The document he signed was in fact a letter agreement. However, the agreement failed to meet the requirements of Civil Code section 1695 et seq., a statutory scheme designed to protect owners of residences in default on their mortgages.

The testimony conflicts as to Gabric's intention in purchasing the Fields home. Gabric testified that prior to the meeting on March 1, 2003, he informed the Fieldses that his siblings had commenced litigation against him regarding his mother's house, which was his primary residence. Because he would soon be forced out of his mother's house, Gabric testified, he told the Fieldses that his intention was to purchase the Fields home as a new primary residence. However, Fields had a different understanding of Gabric's intention in purchasing the Fields home. Fields testified that Gabric indicated that Gabric's intention was to buy the Fields home, fix it up, sell it and split the profits with the Fieldses.

On March 2, 2003, the Fieldses met with John Regan (Regan), a member of Family Financial, and entered into a contract with Family Financial for the sale of the Fields home. Regan informed the Fieldses that under the law, when a home is in foreclosure, the homeowners have five days to change their minds regarding any contract to sell the home. That same evening, Dierdre Fields called Gabric and told him that she and her husband did not intend to go through with the deal with him because they had a better deal with Family Financial. According to Mrs. Fields's testimony, Gabric â€