Searls v. Wave Enterprises
Filed 8/24/06 Searls v. Wave Enterprises 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| GLORIA H. SEARLS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WAVE ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B184139 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC287497) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Robert L. Hess, Judge. Affirmed.
Mifflin & Associates and Ken Mifflin for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Musick, Peeler & Garrett, Cheryl A. Orr and Lourdes De La Cruz for Defendants and Respondents.
Plaintiff, Gloria H. Searls, appeals from summary judgment in favor of defendants Wave Enterprises, Inc. (Wave) and Pepperdine University (Pepperdine). The summary judgment was granted after the court found no merit in plaintiff's causes of action for breach of contract and invasion of privacy. Earlier, the court had dismissed several other defendants, including Attorney James M. Cowley and his law firm and partner, and had also dismissed plaintiff's causes of action for fraud and conversion.[1] We conclude that summary adjudication of the remaining causes of action, and hence summary judgment, were proper.
FACTS
As alleged by the second amended complaint, and illustrated by evidence on the motion for summary judgment, the essential facts giving rise to this litigation were as follows. In 1999 plaintiff, a legally blind octogenarian, owned real property on Thurman Avenue in Los Angeles, the site of a furnished school facility which had been closed because of declining enrollment (property). The property was heavily encumbered, but plaintiff believed it to be worth $2.6 million, and had declined an offer for $1.7 million. In November 1999, the property entered the final stage of foreclosure, a sale being set for November 12. Plaintiff consulted Attorney Cowley, and he advised her to seek the assistance of defendant Wave, a nonprofit corporation, wholly owned by and supportive of Pepperdine.
Wave prepared, and plaintiff and it entered into, a written agreement containing the following principal terms (contract): (1) Wave would advance $10,000, to pay the principal lienholder for a 45-day stay of the foreclosure sale, and another $5,000, as fees for Cowley. This advance would be a loan to plaintiff (loan), which would be secured by the property and also by other real property she owned. (2) Wave would have a 45-day option to acquire the property or to sell it, during which period plaintiff would cooperate with Wave's inspections and evaluations. (3) Wave would â€
