Zavalza v. Varela

Filed 3/29/06 Zavalza v. Varela 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jan A. Pluim, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Nolan E. Clark and Nolan E. Clark for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Shatford & Shatford; Walter Tyrrel Shatford III for Defendant and Respondent.

____________________________________

A buyer sued for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property. The trial court rendered judgment for the seller, finding the consideration was inadequate and the transaction was tainted by overlapping conflicts of interest. We affirm.

FACTS

Karen Varela owned property in Monrovia (a single lot with a primary residence where she lived and a rental unit in back where her daughter lived). In February 2002, Varela listed the property for sale (for $260,000) through Louis Zapata (a real estate agent with Home Life/Five Star Realty). Although Zapata represented in his listing agreement that he would market the property through a multiple listing service (MLS), he did not do so.

Instead, within days after the property was listed, Zapata presented an offer ($252,500) from another client, Celestino Zavalza (so that Zapata was acting as both the seller's and the buyer's agent), and the seller accepted that offer on February 21.[1] Under the terms of the parties' agreement, the deal was contingent upon the buyer's approval of an inspection, on the seller's purchase of a replacement property that would close escrow concurrently with the Monrovia property escrow, and on the buyer's ability to obtain a loan at the â€