Facts

Starting in 2003, Tom Vu and Trucly Thi Ha were in a relationship and living together. During this time, Ha financed the purchase of three properties with funds lent to her by her mother and purchase-money mortgages obtained on the properties.

On July 23, 2003, Ha acquired the first residential property in Long Beach. On Sept. 18, Ha acquired the second property in Garden Grove. On June 7, 2004, Ha acquired the third property in Rancho Dominguez. Vu and Ha resided at one of the three properties.

On Sept. 10, 2005, Ha and Vu entered into a written partnership agreement whereby Vu would acquire a 50 percent interest in Ha's properties and each party would have an equal interest in all future acquired properties. Ultimately, one of the properties was lost to foreclosure after Ha failed to make mortgage payments and another was lost in a private sale which earned only $1,350. Ha put the remaining property up for sale. While escrow was pending, Vu filed a lis pendens.

Vu sued Ha for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Ha's attorney and the purchaser's attorney agreed to close escrow but to keep the proceeds, $120,000, in a trust account pending the conclusion of this litigation.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Vu filed the lis pendens arguing that he was entitled to 50 percent of the proceeds of the sale, per the 2005 agreement. Vu alleged that he and Ha acquired the residential properties together and that they both agreed that it would be to their mutual benefit if Ha held the properties in her name only. He alleged that in the 2005 written agreement, they memorialized the terms of the existing arrangement.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Ha alleged that she had purchased the properties on her own and that she and Vu had never contemplated a partnership arrangement until the 2005 agreement. She alleged that Vu contributed neither money nor maintenance to the properties. Ha claimed that she only signed the partnership agreement because she wanted to maintain the relationship and that she received no consideration in return. Ha also alleged that she and her mother lent Vu substantial sums of money, which he used to start two businesses. Ha argued that Vu was not entitled to any money because the partnership agreement was unenforceable. However, she also claimed that there was nothing to recover from the proceeds after satisfaction of various liabilities.

Result

The court found in favor of Ha on all claims.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Oct. 31, 2006.