Blanco v. Arias
Filed 4/14/06 Blanco v. Arias CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 EIGHT
| LUIS BLANCO et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CARMEN ARIAS et al., Defendants and Appellants. | B180223 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC301370) |
APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Warren L. Ettinger, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Malhotra & Malhotra and Krishna R. Malhotra for Defendants and Appellants.
Law Offices of J. Steven Kennedy and J. Steven Kennedy for Defendants and Respondents.
___________________________________
This appeal arises from a dispute concerning ownership of real property consisting of a single family residence located on Orchard Avenue in Los Angeles (the property), which defendant and appellant Carmen Arias purchased in 1993 for approximately $74,909.[1] When plaintiffs and respondents Luis and Maria Blanco moved into the property in April 1999, they believed they had purchased it from Carmen pursuant to an oral contract. Carmen, however, maintained that she rented the property to respondents and promised them only first right of refusal if she ever decided to sell. In August 2003, after Carmen purported to evict respondents from the property, respondents filed the instant action for specific performance and breach of contract, among other causes of action. Following a non-jury trial, judgment was rendered in favor of respondents. On appeal, appellants contend: (1) the action is barred by the statute of limitations; (2) the action is barred by laches; (3) the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment; (4) the terms of the contract were uncertain; and (5) the contract was not supported by sufficient consideration. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Viewed in accordance with the usual rules on appeal (Cochran v. Rubens (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 481, 486), the evidence adduced at trial established that, when Carmen purchased the property in 1993, she made a down payment of about 10 percent and obtained a mortgage for the balance of approximately $68,000 (the 1993 mortgage). In 1997, Luis, who is a licensed general contractor, did some work on the property for which he billed Carmen.
On or about March 30, 1999, Carmen agreed to sell the property to respondents. In consideration, respondents agreed to pay Carmen a down payment of $11,000 and to pay Carmen a monthly sum equivalent to Carmen's monthly payments on the 1993 mortgage until the 1993 mortgage was paid off (the agreement). That day, respondents gave Carmen a check for $3,000 in partial satisfaction of the $11,000 down payment. The memo line of that check contains the handwritten notation: â€
