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.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Negligent Misrepresentation

Lafayette Sharp, Ashley Sharp v. Julie B. Mains, Trustee for the 25 Monarch Bay Land Trust; Julie Mains; Geraldine Hulon; Geri Hulon, as Trustee of the Geri Hulon Trust dated August 15, 2002, and Roes 1 to 15 inclusive

Published: Jun. 4, 2016 | Result Date: May 9, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 30-2015-00769175-CU-BC-CJC Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Court

Orange Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Ronald F. Woods
(Ronald F Woods & Associates)

Pro Per


Defendant

Patricia E. Parker

Christopher M. Adishian


Facts

Plaintiffs sued defendants for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, negligent maintenance of premises, retaliatory eviction, and failure to return or account for security deposit.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that they entered into a residential lease with defendant Julie Mains, the purported owner/landowner, which contained an option to purchase the subject property. They alleged that defendants failed to disclose significant issues regarding the state of the property, including leaks and extensive termite damage. Defendants failed to remedy the deficiencies and thereafter initiated an unlawful detainer action against plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also claimed that defendants did not actually hold title to the property, and were not authorized to convey any interest to plaintiffs. Last, plaintiffs argued that defendants failed to return their security deposit after they vacated the premises.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants argued that they were entitled to dismissal because plaintiffs failed to timely file an amended complaint within the time allotted by the court.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Jan. 30, 2015.


#83291

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

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