Beth v. Doughty
Filed 1/22/07 Beth v. Doughty CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 FIVE
TODD BETH et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. EVERETT C. DOUGHTY, III, Defendant and Appellant. |
A111317, A113041
(SonomaCounty Super. Ct. No. SCV-234887) |
In this consolidated appeal, appellant Everett C. Doughty, III, appeals a judgment after court trial in favor of respondents Todd and Lisa Beth in the parties' cross-actions for declaratory relief regarding the fair market value of the subject real property and a postjudgment order awarding respondents attorney fees and expert witness fees. Appellant contends the court erroneously determined the date for valuation of the property, improperly considered the validity of the parties' lease option agreement and improperly awarded respondents attorney fees and costs. We reject the contentions and affirm.
Background
In 2002, appellant built the subject home on Doughty Way in Santa Rosa, as part of a larger 10-lot subdivision. On February 1, 2002, respondents signed a residential lease with an option to purchase the property. The handwritten portion of the lease option agreement, drafted by appellant, states in relevant part: â€
