Fear Not Law Articles: Simi-Moorpark Freeway Properties v. CypressLand

Simi-Moorpark Freeway Properties v

Simi-Moorpark Freeway Properties v. CypressLand

Filed 1/31/07 Simi-Moorpark Freeway Properties v. Cypress Land CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SIMI-MOORPARK FREEWAY PROPERTIES, LTD., et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

CYPRESS LAND COMPANY et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

B186385

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BC308463)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William F. Highberger, Judge. Affirmed.

Alschuler Grossman Stein & Kahan, Mark A. Neubauer and Carla A. Veltman for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Rutter Hobbs & Davidoff, Fred A. Fenster and Steven E. Formaker for Defendants and Respondents.

______________________________

In separate transactions governed by two different purchase agreements, plaintiffs sold real property to defendants that was subject to special city taxes. The city's formula for calculating the taxes, which was contained in a document filed with the county recorder, stated that the city's determination of the tax was â€

Description	In separate transactions governed by two different purchase agreements, plaintiffs sold real property to defendants that was subject to special city taxes. The city's formula for calculating the taxes, which was contained in a document filed with the county recorder, stated that the city's determination of the tax was "final and conclusive." Both purchase agreements gave the defendants a credit against the purchase price for the amount of the taxes. Plaintiffs filed this action against defendants, contending that the city's determination of the taxes on the first sale was too high and that they were therefore entitled to an additional sum from the first sale. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding that the parties had received exactly what they had bargained for under the purchase agreements. Court affirm for the same reason.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.