This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Real Property
Quiet Title

Wing King Cheung, Chong Fan Cheung, Yan Yan Chew and Yik Chi Chiu, each individuals v. Three Twenty Co., a California Limited partnership

Published: May 17, 2008 | Result Date: Mar. 26, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: RG06273684 Bench Decision –  for cross-complainant

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Steven M. Morger


Defendant

Richard L. Beckman
(Beckman, Feller & Chang P.C.)


Experts

Defendant

Patrick Wilkes
(technical)

John J. Wallace
(technical)

Facts

Defendant, Three Twenty Co., owned a three-story commercial building in Oakland, California. Three Twenty sold the building to developer WK&K Associates and Three Twenty received a down payment and carried back a purchase loan secured by a deed of trust. The building consisted of three floors and WK&K began selling units in the building. WK&K defaulted on its loan to Three Twenty and Three Twenty had to foreclose against the unsold units in the building. In 2004, plaintiffs Wing King, Chong Fan, Yan Yan Cheung and Yik Chi Chiu purchased the third floor units and commenced developing the fourth floor. Plaintiffs learned of Three Twenty's interest in the 4th floor rights and sued for quiet title. Three Twenty cross-complained. The bench trial was bifurcated. One bifurcated issue was dealing with ownership of the real property and the other part was to determine the amount, if any, of damages to be awarded to cross-complainant, Three Twenty, if the court ruled in favor of Three Twenty.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs contended that plaintiffs were entitled to clear title to the fourth floor of the subject property.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Three Twenty denied allegations and counterclaimed alleging that it was the owner of the fourth floor, which had been damaged by plaintiffs' use of the space.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff demanded $300,000. Defendant offered $50,000.

Damages

The plaintiffs sought quiet title of the commercial property and Three Twenty sought the value of development rights of the fourth floor.

Result

The judge ruled for defendant Three Twenty and awarded them $160,000 which represented the value of the fourth-floor development rights determined by the court.


#102824

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390