Vogt v. Superior Court
Filed 4/4/06 Vogt v. Superior Court CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Modoc)
| CHET VOGT et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF MODOC COUNTY, Respondent; SX RANCH, INC., Real Party in Interest. | C050675
(Super. Ct. No. CU04054)
|
Petitioners and plaintiffs Chet Vogt and Pat Kirby (hereafter collectively plaintiffs) brought this action against SX Ranch, Inc. (SX) following the failure of SX to complete the sale of the SX Ranch property (Ranch) to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' complaint alleged causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and specific performance. SX moved for summary adjudication on the specific performance claim on the ground plaintiffs had not been ready, willing, and able to purchase the Ranch on the date set for close of escrow. The trial court granted the motion for summary adjudication of the specific performance claim.
Plaintiffs petitioned this court for a writ of mandate. We granted an alternative writ to review the propriety of the order granting summary adjudication and stayed proceedings to expunge a lis pendens on the Ranch. We are now of the opinion that the alternative writ was improvidently granted and therefore now discharge and vacate the alternative writ and deny the petition.
Plaintiffs argue there are triable issues of fact regarding the date set for close of escrow and the amount of cash they had available to put down on the property. They also claim their loan for the purchase of the property would have been ready to fund by the close of escrow, had SX not actively interfered.
We shall conclude there is no triable issue of material fact as to the date for close of escrow and no evidence that SX caused the funding of plaintiffs' loan to be delayed. Having concluded plaintiffs did not have loan funding in place by the close of escrow, we need not address whether plaintiffs had sufficient cash to close the sale by that date.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 7, 2004, plaintiffs agreed to purchase the Ranch from SX for $3.5 million, which amount included a $25,000 deposit. The agreement stated: â€
