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
Unlawful Detainer
Fraudulent Concealment

Paige v. Pollock

Published: Mar. 8, 2005 | Result Date: Feb. 10, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 04CC06357 Bench Decision –  $0

Judge

Peter J. Polos

Court

Orange Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Stuart Knight


Defendant

Philip W. Green
(Samuels Green & Steel LLP)


Facts

Pollock bought a home owned by Paige in Costa Mesa. The home was in foreclosure, with an imminent sale date, but had been taken out of foreclosure a few days before the purchase agreement was entered into. Paige agreed to vacate within 60 days and failed to do so. A day before Pollock filed an unlawful detainer action, Paige filed suit seeking to rescind the sale and obtain compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code section 1695 et seq, a statutory scheme that regulates how individuals may buy foreclosure properties. Paige also recorded a lis pendens. Paige later changed his theory by amending his action to allege a violation by Paige and an individual who assisted him, Dyan Mumford, of Civil Code section 2945 et seq. This set of statutes places limitations on the activities of "foreclosure consultants." Paige also sought rescission of the purchase agreement based on common law theories of fraudulent concealment, mutual mistake, etc.

Settlement Discussions

On the day of trial, counsel for Paige made an informal offer to have Paige give up his claim to the property if 50 percent of the net proceeds on resale were given to him. Pollock rejected the offer and made no counter offer.

Result

The court found against Paige and in favor of Pollock and Mumford on all causes of action in both lawsuits. The court ruled they were not foreclosure consultants and had engaged in no wrongdoing. The court ordered the lis pendens expunged immediately and ruled that a writ of possession could issue forthwith. The court also awarded Pollock $40,080 in back rent.

Other Information

Pollock will be filing a motion to obtain attorney fees pursuant to a contract provision.


#86855

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

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