Hayes v. Cordova
Filed 8/22/06 Hayes v. Cordova CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FOUR
| FRANCES T. HAYES, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent, v. ERNEST R. CORDOVA, Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant. | A109674 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. C02-00791) |
| FRANCES T. HAYES, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, v. ERNEST R. CORDOVA, Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent. | A111443 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. C02-00791) |
In this consolidated appeal, Ernest R. Cordova appeals from a judgment against him following a court trial on a complaint for declaratory relief and a cross-complaint for breach of contract. Frances T. Hayes appeals from a postjudgment order denying her request for attorney fees. We affirm the judgment against Cordova and the postjudgment order denying Hayes's motion for attorney fees.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The underlying dispute involves a contract signed by Hayes and Cordova, wherein Hayes agreed to sell Cordova a 50 percent interest in a corporation that had been formed and operated by her former husband. Two days after signing the contract, Hayes learned that standing orders in her pending marital dissolution action prohibited her from selling her interest in the corporation. Hayes immediately told Cordova that she could not sell shares of the corporation and that the contract needed to be rescinded. Cordova refused to rescind the contract, prompting Hayes to file a declaratory relief action.
In her declaratory relief action, Hayes sought a judicial determination that the contract was null and void by reasons of lack of mutuality, lack of capacity, and bilateral mistake, or in the alternative, that the contract should be rescinded as voidable due to, among other things, undue influence and unconscionability. Cordova brought a cross-complaint against Hayes and her former husband for breach of contract and various tort claims. The trial on Cordova's cross-complaint proceeded solely against Hayes on the breach of contract claim.[1]
The court trial on the complaint for declaratory relief and cross-complaint for breach of contract lasted five days; Hayes and Cordova were the only witnesses. On the last day of trial, the court asked the parties to file posttrial briefs and directed both parties to prepare proposed statements of decision.
The parties submitted proposed statements of decision and subsequent objections to each other's proposals. Thereafter, the trial court issued a written tentative decision, advising the parties that it would become the final statement of decision, â€
