Mackay v. Landry
Filed 4/28/06 Mackay v. Landry 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| JOHN MACKAY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RICHARD LANDRY, Defendant and Respondent. |
A110542
(Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 2002-052583)
|
Appellant John Mackay contends the trial court erred when it rejected his claims of breach of contract and intentional interference with a prospective advantage. We find the trial court's ruling is supported by substantial evidence. We therefore affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In June of 2000, appellant and respondent entered into a residential lease with purchase option agreement, which is the source of the parties' dispute. A purchase agreement was prepared at the same time, indicating a sale price of $495,000. The lease ran from July 1, 2000 through September 30, 2001. Under this agreement, appellant could take possession of the leased property, paying rent and rerenting it to others. Under his option to buy, appellant could assign his purchase rights to another person as his assignee or nominee. Appellant made down payments toward the purchase price, consisting of three $10,000 installments and $500 per month as part of the rent payment. These payments were the nonrefundable cost of the option should Mackay choose not to buy the property but would be applied to the purchase price should he chose to buy the property.
Appellant took possession of the premises and rented the house. The rent he received covered his own obligation to Landry under the lease. In July 2001, Landry informed Mackay that the property's sewer line was linked laterally to the sewer line of the adjoining property. The property could not be purchased without solving this problem. The parties ultimately realized that the best solution was to obtain an easement from the adjoining property owner. The neighbor refused to cooperate.
In October 2001, the parties agreed to the first of two extensions of their initial agreement. The first extended Mackay's â€
