Goepp v. Lee
Filed 7/20/06 Goepp v. Lee CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 EIGHT
| ROBERT GOEPP, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CARA LEE, as Trustee, etc. Defendant and Appellant. | B177922 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC072674) |
APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Terry B. Friedman, Judge. Affirmed.
Polk & Berke and Jeff Berke for Defendant and Appellant.
Palmer, Lombardi & Donohue, Thomas E. Lombardi, Lindsay A. Ayers and Rafael R. Pacquing for Plaintiff and Respondent.
________________________
Appellant Cara Lee, as trustee of the Lee & Mundwiler Profit Sharing Plan (the Plan), appeals a judgment following orders sustaining respondent Robert Goepp's demurrer to (1) appellant's Third Amended Cross-Complaint (TACC) and Fourth Amended Cross-Complaint (FACC), and (2) granting summary judgment in favor of respondent on the complaint. Appellant contends: (1) the operative pleadings stated a cause of action for both rescission and reformation based on fraud and/or mistake, and (2) triable issues of material fact precluded summary judgment. We affirm.[1]
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Husband and wife Cara Lee and Stephan Mundwiler are both architects. In March 1997, they formed the Lee & Mundwiler Profit-Sharing Plan, of which they are co-trustees. In 1997, the Plan purchased the Manhattan Beach Hotel, located at 4017 Highland Avenue in Manhattan Beach (the property), for $1.1 million.
Respondent is a real estate investor. In March 2000, the Plan agreed to sell the property to respondent for $1.35 million. Escrow was opened but the sale was not completed. In February 2001, respondent agreed to purchase the property for $1.15 million and to assume the existing mortgage. After the lender would not agree to allow respondent to assume the existing mortgage, respondent discussed with Lee and Mundwiler an alternative: respondent would lease the property with an option to purchase it for $1.15 million.
On April 5, 2001, Mundwiler and respondent executed three documents relating to the property: an option agreement (the option agreement), an abstract of the option agreement, and a commercial lease (the lease). That day, respondent gave Mundwiler a $1,000 cashier's check, payable to the Plan. The option agreement recites that consideration for the option was to be $1,000 and acknowledges receipt of that consideration.
According to the option agreement, the option period commenced on April 5, 2001, and continued until midnight on April 5, 2005, at which time, if not exercised, it would automatically terminate.[2] Exhibit A, which was incorporated by reference in the option agreement, set forth the financing terms. It provided: â€
