Cutley v. McCauley
Filed 8/22/06 Cutley v. McCauley CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 TWO
| EARNEST CUTLEY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESSE McCAULEY, Defendant and Appellant. | B180717 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YC048310) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Cary H. Nishimoto, Judge. Affirmed.
Stanley D. Bowman for Defendant and Appellant.
Law Offices of Matsunaga & Associates and Naveen Madala for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * *
Defendant and appellant Jesse McCauley appeals from a judgment ordering specific performance of an agreement he entered into with plaintiff and respondent Earnest Cutley (Cutley). Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that Cutley was ready, willing and able to perform an agreement to purchase property from him. We affirm. Evidence that Cutley had prequalified for a loan in a sufficient amount supported the trial court's determination that he was ready, willing and able to perform his end of the bargain and purchase the property.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This action involves residential real property located at 9406 3rd Avenue in Inglewood which Cutley and his wife purchased in 1991. In the late 1990's, Cutley began to have financial difficulties; by 2002 he had become delinquent on his Chapter 13 bankruptcy payments. Through a mutual friend, Cutley met appellant sometime in April or May 2002 to discuss how appellant could assist Cutley out of his financial troubles and save his home from foreclosure. Appellant agreed to purchase the house from Cutley--thereby obtaining a tax deduction for the mortgage interest payments--and Cutley agreed to cover appellant's costs (including the down payment) associated with taking out a mortgage on the house and to make monthly payments to appellant.
Cutley sold the house to appellant in May 2002. They agreed on a purchase price of $235,000. In June 2002, Cutley and appellant drafted and signed a written agreement concerning the subject property, which provided: (1) Appellant would be refunded $16,300 in connection with the purchase of the property; (2) Cutley would pay appellant â€
