Judge Joel R Wohlfeil, Case Number: 37-2022-00029481-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2022-00029481-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 24, 2024

04/26/2024 09:00:00 AM C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00029481-CU-BC-CTL TOMA VS TOMA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 02/09/2024

The Motion (ROA # 84) of Defendants Hani Toma, personally and as Trustee of the Hani Toma Living Trust's (collectively 'Defendants') for Summary Judgment or, alternatively, for summary adjudication of the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Heveen Toma ('Plaintiff') and the Cross-Complaint filed by Defendants, is DENIED.

This ruling is based on the analysis set forth below.

Defendants' Request (ROA # 86) for judicial notice is GRANTED.

Defendants' evidentiary objections (ROA # 106) are OVERRULED.

1st COA: Breach of Contract Defendant argues the alleged oral agreement is barred by the statute of frauds and is unenforceable. A party will be estopped from relying on the statute of frauds where fraud would result from refusal to enforce an oral contract. Redke v. Silvertrust (1971) 6 Cal. 3d 94, 101.

The doctrine of estoppel has been applied where an unconscionable injury would result from denying enforcement after one party has been induced to make a serious change of position in reliance on the contract, or where unjust enrichment would result if a party who has received the benefits of the other's performance were allowed to invoke the statute. Id. Equitable estoppel may preclude the use of a statute of frauds defense. Byrne v. Laura (1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 1054, 1068.

The doctrine of estoppel to assert the statue of frauds is applied by courts to prevent fraud that would result from refusal to enforce oral contracts in certain circumstances. Id. Such fraud may exist in the unconscionable injury that would result from denying enforcement of the contract after one party has been induced by the other to seriously change their position in reliance on the contract. Id. Whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel should be applied in a given case is generally a question of fact. Id. Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3087971 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: TOMA VS TOMA [IMAGED] 37-2022-00029481-CU-BC-CTL 'Equitable estoppel to rely on a statute of frauds is certainly a question of fact in Flo's case. Flo has stated that she relied on Skip's assurances that she would receive his property and that he would document this understanding. The reliance supporting an equitable estoppel need not necessarily be reliance on representations that a writing will be executed ..., but Flo's evidence that she relied on such representations constitutes a classic case for application of the doctrine .... A trier of fact could find that Flo had 'seriously' changed her position in reliance on Skip's promises by moving in with him, performing the duties of a spouse, and retiring from her job at his insistence .... A trier of fact could also conclude that Flo would be 'unconscionably' injured, under the circumstances, if the lack of a writing precluded any recovery .... Since equitable estoppel is a triable issue of fact in Flo's case, it was error to summarily adjudicate her claim for damages for breach of the property agreement.' Id. at 1069 (internal citations omitted).

In this action, disputed material facts exist demonstrating that Plaintiff paid $50,000 to Defendant in reliance on the existence of an oral agreement. According to Plaintiff, the express terms of the agreement were for Plaintiff to contribute $50,000 toward the initial purchase of the subject property.

Defendant agreed to contribute the remainder of the $720,000 purchase price and transfer title to Plaintiff after the property was acquired from the seller.

The contribution of $50,000 could constitute a serious change of position in reliance on the contract such that it is disputed whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel prevents defendant's reliance on the statute of frauds defense.

It is undisputed that during some undefined intervening period defendant paid back to Plaintiff the sum of $43,000. The Court infers from this limited evidence that Defendant attempted to unwind the agreement by paying a portion of the money back to Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff has accepted this tender. However, Defendant does not cite any legal authority for the contention that a subsequent partial repayment can prevent plaintiff from relying on equitable estoppel to prevent application of the statute of frauds defense.

Defendant also argues there was no meeting of the minds or adequate consideration to support the alleged agreement. However, as discussed above, it is disputed whether there was an express agreement for Defendant to transfer the property to plaintiff after Plaintiff contributed $50,000 to the purchase price.

No legal authority is cited for the contention that $50,000 is not adequate consideration. In essence, the purported agreement represents a gift of the remaining $720,000 purchase price. Defendant does not argue that a gift agreement of this type is unenforceable as a matter of law.

Defendant also argues a breach did not occur. This argument is based on the 'when I'm done with it' language. However, it is disputed whether this 'condition' was part of the express agreement between the parties.

2nd COA: Promissory Estoppel The elements of a promissory estoppel claim are: (1) a promise clear and unambiguous in its terms; (2) reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; (3) the reliance must be both reasonable and foreseeable; and (4) the party asserting the estoppel must be injured by the reliance. US Ecology, Inc.

v. State of California (2005) 129 Cal. App. 4th 887, 901.

A promise is an indispensable element, and estoppel cannot be established from preliminary discussions and negotiations. Garcia v. World Savings, FSB (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 1031, 1044, 1045.

As discussed above, disputed facts exist regarding reliance on the existence of a clear and unambiguous promise to transfer ownership of the subject property. It is disputed whether this reliance was reasonable under the circumstances.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3087971 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: TOMA VS TOMA [IMAGED] 37-2022-00029481-CU-BC-CTL 3rd COA: Fraud As discussed above, disputed material facts exist regarding whether defendant intended for Plaintiff to rely on the promise that ownership of the subject property would be transferred to Plaintiff in return for the $50,000 investment.

Material disputed facts exist regarding whether Plaintiff sustained damages. Plaintiff has submitted evidence showing that he would not have contributed $50,000 to the down payment and would not have invested an additional $50,000 in improvements if not for Defendant's promise to transfer title.

4th COA: Quiet Title As discussed above, disputed material facts exist regarding the existence of an oral agreement to transfer ownership of the subject property. As a result, this cause of action also survives.

5th COA: Declaratory Relief As discussed above, disputed material facts exist regarding the existence of an oral agreement to transfer ownership of the subject property. As a result, this cause of action also survives.

Cross-Complaint for Ejectment Defendant and Cross-Complainant seeks the entry of summary judgment on his cross-action for ejectment. The elements of this claim are as follows: (1) Plaintiff's ownership of some interest in the real property; (2) Defendant's possession and withholding; and (3) damage to Plaintiff, if any, and value of rents and profits, if recovery of their value is sought. 5 Witkin, Cal. Proc. 6th Plead at � 637 (2024).

'It is unnecessary to allege that defendant's possession is 'wrongful or unlawful.' Not only is this a conclusion of law, but it is surplusage, for the main allegation of plaintiff's present ownership implies his or her legal right to present possession and the unlawfulness of defendant's possession.' Id. at � 639 (citing Payne & Dewey v. Treadwell (1860) 16 Cal. 220, 244).

In this action, material disputed facts exist regarding Cross-Complainant's legal right to possession, as discussed above. There is a triable issue of fact regarding Cross-Defendant's ownership claim. It is disputed whether Cross-Defendant is subject to a tenancy at will because of a valid ownership interest.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3087971