Antioch Bldg. Materials v. Bellante
Filed 2/9/07 Antioch Bldg. Materials v. Bellante CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
ANTIOCH BUILDING MATERIALS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RAMONA BELLANTE, Individually and as Trustee, etc., Defendant and Respondent. | A113384 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. C03-02623) |
Plaintiff Antioch Building Materials, Inc. (ABM) filed a complaint against defendant Ramona Bellante[1] seeking (1) to enforce an option to renew a lease which ABM failed to timely exercise and (2) to compel compliance with an option to purchase the property. Following a court trial, the trial court rejected ABM's bid to enforce the options, finding that ABM was not entitled to relief from its failure to timely notify Bellante of its intent to renew. We conclude that the trial court was correct, and we affirm.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
In 1986, Niels and Susan Larsen entered into a series of transactions pertaining to ABM, a concrete and asphalt business in Pittsburg, California. The Larsens purchased the business outright from Bellante, but rather than also purchasing the land on which the business was operated, they entered into a lease agreement for the property. The lessors were Lena Cesa, individually, and Henry Cesa and Ramona Bellante, Trustees of the Joseph M. Cesa Trust created by the Last Will of Joseph M. Cesa; the lessee was ABM. The initial term of the lease expired on December 31, 1992, but the lease agreement also provided for three five-year options to renew. Importantly, the lease agreement clearly stated, â€
