Plaintiff conservation organization appealed two judgments and an order from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County (California), which denied its mandamus petition challenging defendant city’s determination that it was not qualified to receive mitigation land; granted summary judgment to defendant developers as to breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and constructive trust; and awarded fees and costs. Appellant sought counsel from a small business attorney.
Table of Contents
Overview
The parties’ agreement provided for mitigation land to be transferred to the conservation organization and contained a clause requiring that the city not unreasonably withhold approvals. The court, noting that the approval clause did not alter the standard of review, concluded that the organization had not had demonstrated an entitlement to due process under Cal. Const., art. I, § 7, and U.S. Const., 14th Amend., as to qualification. A vagueness argument lacked authority and, in any event, the qualification criteria were not vague. Substantial evidence showed that the organization had not met the criteria. The developers were entitled to rescission based on failure of consideration under Civ. Code, § 1689, subd. (b)(4), mistake under § 1689, subd. (b)(1), impossibility, and frustration of purpose. Approval was an implied condition without which there was no duty to perform under Civ. Code, § 1436. No errors occurred in the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. The incorrect assumption that the organization was qualified supported a finding of mistake of fact under Civ. Code, § 1577, subd. (2). Upon rescission, a severability clause had no effect in accordance with Civ. Code, § 1688.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgments and order.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff buyers sued defendant home inspector for failing to discover and report certain defects in the house they ultimately purchased. The Superior Court of Orange County, California, granted the inspector’s demurrer to the buyers’ second amended complaint without leave to amend. The buyers appealed.
Overview
The buyers hired the inspector to inspect a home on which they made an offer. The buyers were required to initial two provisions in the contract with the inspector: one clause limited the inspector’s damages and the other provided that any action had to be brought within one year of the date of the inspection. Both Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 337.1 and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7199 had a four-year statute of limitations. The contract also had specific exemptions relating to asbestos, soils conditions, and air quality. The trial court granted the inspector’s demurrer based on the one-year statute of limitation. After finding asbestos and drainage problems with the home, the buyers sued the inspector for contract and tort based claims. The appellate court held that, as the one year limitation in the contract completely vitiated the delayed discovery rule, the buyers’ causes of action did not accrue under the one-year statute of limitations provided in the home inspection contract until they discovered, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered the home inspector negligently failed to discover, or negligently failed to report, material defects in the home.
Outcome
The judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded to the trial court with directions to vacate the dismissal, to overrule the demurrer, and for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.