Ramirez v. Napoles

Filed 6/21/06 Ramirez v. Napoles CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Robert J. Anspach, Judge.

Law Office of Donald C. Duchow and Donald C. Duchow for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Office of Sheri Connelly Vining and Sheri Connelly Vining for Defendants and Respondents.

Appellant, Rosalinda Ramirez, filed a complaint against respondents, Antonio Napoles and Virginia Napoles, alleging breach of contract and fraud arising from the sale of three parcels of real property located in Mexico. Appellant, the buyer, claimed that she had been misled regarding the value and location of the property, that she paid respondents $30,000 for the three parcels, and that it was not her signature on the official designations of title to the land.

In contrast, respondents claimed that appellant had paid them only $20,000, that appellant had viewed the properties before the purchase, and that appellant had signed the property deeds.

Following an unreported bench trial, the trial court issued a tentative decision in favor of respondents. The court found that appellant had viewed the properties before the purchase, that appellant had signed the property deeds, that appellant had not paid respondents $10,000 for one of the parcels, and that respondents had not misled appellant. The court concluded that the evidence presented by respondents was more credible that that presented by appellant. The court further stated that â€