Guidroz v. Pelham
Filed 8/21/06 Guidroz v. Pelham 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
(Tehama)
----
| ARTHUR GUIDROZ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MARGARET PELHAM, Defendant and Respondent. |
C050343
(Super. Ct. No. CI52378)
|
Following a bench trial in this case involving a real estate transaction, buyers/plaintiffs Arthur Guidroz and Verna Guidroz appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the seller, defendant Margaret Pelham. Plaintiffs contend a statutory requirement (Civ. Code section 1102 et seq.[1]) for the seller to provide a transfer disclosure statement (including disclosure of flooding problems) cannot be waived, and therefore the trial court erred in concluding plaintiffs had waived the right to a transfer disclosure statement. We shall conclude that, even assuming for the sake of argument that the section 1102 statement cannot be waived, plaintiffs fail to show prejudicial error warranting reversal of the judgment, because they did not meet their burden of proof on the element of damages.
Plaintiffs also complain of the trial court's comment that they have a problem with standing (related to their creation and later dissolution of a limited liability corporation). We shall conclude the standing issue is moot.
Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The original complaint was filed in June 2003, by Arthur Guidroz, Verna Guidroz, and (their son) Walter Carney, Jr. On January 23, 2004, an amended complaint was filed, with only Arthur and Verna Guidroz as plaintiffs. The amended complaint named as defendants the seller (and others who reached settlement and were dismissed from the case before trial). Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that defendant (1) failed to provide a transfer disclosure statement, as required by section 1102; (2) misrepresented the property's past history of flooding; and (3) misrepresented the frequency of trains passing on railroad tracks abutting the property. Plaintiffs sought damages. The pleading listed four counts for breach of contract, violation of section 1102, negligence, and fraud. Although the trial court ruled against plaintiffs on all counts, only the section 1102 claim is at issue on appeal.
The evidence at the bench trial included the following:
By the time of trial, defendant had resumed ownership of the property, due to plaintiffs' default on a promissory note that was part of the transaction.
The property, which defendant owned and operated as Pelham's Bay Resort for 35 years, contains a house, three apartments, a trailer park with 32 RV spaces, and docks. The property borders the Sacramento River in Tehama County. There is a railroad trestle adjacent to the property, approximately 10 to 12 feet above the existing grade of the property. A sign posted on the road to the property states: â€
