Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 21PSCV00400, Date: 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00400    Hearing Date: October 12, 2022    Dept: O

Defendants Enrico Aiello’s and Joyce Aiello’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Background   

Plaintiff Calvin Wang (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

On or about June 13, 2003, Plaintiff entered into an oral contract with Enrico Aiello and Joyce Aiello (“J. Aiello”)  (together, the “Aiellos”) to jointly purchase an investment property located at 2239 Cascade Way, Rowland Heights, California 91748 (“subject property”) for $1,330,000.00, with a $266,000.00 down payment. The parties agreed that Plaintiff, on the one hand, and the Aiellos, on the other hand, would each pay half of the down payment, mortgage payment and property taxes, would thereafter each hold a 50% interest in the subject property, and would each be entitled to 50% of any sales proceeds from the subject property. They agreed that they would reside in the subject property together, along with J. Aiello’s mother, and that the Aiellos would pay all expenses that accrued while they all lived at the subject property. In or around May 2020, Plaintiff and the Aiellos agreed to sell the subject property and share the proceeds equally. The Aiellos sold the subject property on or about February 26, 2021 for $2,170,000.00 but have failed to give Plaintiff any of the proceeds.

On May 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against the Aiellos for:

1.                  Breach of Oral Contract

2.                  Fraudulent Concealment

3.                  Conversion

4.                  Common Count

5.                  Unjust Enrichment

The Final Status Conference is set for March 21, 2023. Trial is set for April 4, 2023.

Legal Standard

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4^th 1110, 1119 [emphasis theirs].)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (p)(2).) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4^th 463, 467.)

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Id. at 467; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

Discussion

The Aiellos move the court for summary judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff.

Evidentiary Objections

The court rules on Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections as follows:

As to Declaration of Joyce Aiello (“Joyce”):

1.                  Overruled as to ¶¶ 11-13 and 16, 20, 21 and 23-25 (i.e., for non-compliance with California Rules of Court rule 3.1354, subdivision (b)(3));

2.                  Overruled as to Exhibit 8, Sustained as to ¶ 6, page 2, line 22;

3.                  Overruled as to ¶ 10, page 3, lines 17-18; and,

4.                  Overruled as to ¶ 22, page 6, line 4.

As to the Declaration of Enrico Aiello (“Enrico”):

1.                  Sustained as to ¶ 4, page 2, line 22;

2.                  Overruled as to ¶ 5, page 2, lines 24-26; and,

3.                  Overruled as to ¶¶ 6, 7 and 11 (i.e., for non-compliance with California Rules of Court rule 3.1354, subdivision (b)(3)).

Merits

On May 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Aiellos for Breach of Oral Contract, Fraudulent Concealment, Conversion, Common Count and Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiff alleged, in relevant part, as follows: On or about June 13, 2003, Plaintiff entered into an oral contract with the Aiellos to jointly purchase the subject property as an investment property. (Complaint, ¶ 5.). Pursuant to the oral contract, Plaintiff and the Aiellos agreed that Plaintiff, on the one hand, and the Aiellos, on the other hand, would each (1) pay half of the down payment on the subject property, (2) hold a 50% ownership interest in the subject property and in the proceeds arising from any sale of same, and (3) pay half of the monthly mortgage payment and property taxes due on the subject property. (Id., ¶¶ 7, 8 and 10.) Plaintiff and the Aiellos agreed that the Aeillos would live in the subject property together with Plaintiff’s and Joyce’s mother, and that the Aiellos would pay all expenses that accrued while they were living in the subject property. (Id., ¶¶ 9 and 10.) Plaintiff and the Aiellos purchased the subject property for $1,330,000, with a total down payment in the amount of $266,000. (Id., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff paid $133,000.00 of the down payment and the Aiellos paid the remaining $133,000.00. (Id., ¶ 8.) In connection with the oral contract, Joyce sent Plaintiff monthly reminders via text messages regarding Plaintiff’s obligation to pay 50% of the monthly mortgage payment and property taxes due on the subject property. (Id., ¶ 11, Exh. A.) During the June 2003-February 26, 2021 time frame, Plaintiff paid at least $500,000.00 in mortgage payments and property taxes on the subject property. (Id., ¶ 12.) In May 2020, Plaintiff and the Aiellos agreed to sell the subject property and to share the proceeds of the sale equally. (Id., ¶ 13.) The Aiellos thereafter concealed critical information related to the sale of the subject property from Plaintiff, including information regarding the purchaser, the amount of the sale and the escrow closing date. (Id., ¶ 14.) The Aiellos sold the subject property on or about February 26, 2021 for $2,170,000.00 but failed to give Plaintiff any of the sales proceeds and instead converted same for the purchase of a second property, without notice to Plaintiff or his consent. (Id., ¶¶ 16, 18 and 19.)

The Aiellos move for summary judgment against Plaintiff on the basis that there is no triable issue of material fact as to Plaintiff’s assertion that he was a 50% owner of the subject property under an oral partnership agreement. The Aiellos proffer evidence that the subject property was purchased by the Aiellos together with Joyce’s mother, Grace, for $1,330,000.00 (Joyce Decl., ¶ 10; Enrico Decl., ¶ 5), that the down payment on the subject property was $700,000.00, $300,000.00 of which came from Grace’s sale of the Joel Drive house (Joyce Decl., ¶ 10, Exh. 3; Enrico Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. 3), that the remaining $400,000.00 of the down payment came from the Aiellos, including from the proceeds of the sale of their Pepperdale Drive home, their savings and from a short-term bridge loan of $110,000.00 provided to them by Plaintiff (Id., ¶¶ 10 and 12), that the Aiellos fully paid back the aforesaid loan to Plaintiff within 3 months when they secured an equity line of credit (Joyce Decl., ¶¶ 10 and 12, Exhs. 5 and 6; Enrico Decl., ¶ 6, Exhs. 5 and 6) and that the Aiellos paid the closing costs (Joyce Decl., ¶ 10). The Aiellos both disavow that they ever had any discussions with Plaintiff with respect to any partnership in the subject property. (Joyce Decl., ¶ 11; Enrico Decl., ¶ 7.) The Aiellos also proffer evidence that Plaintiff contributed no money for the down payment, that Plaintiff did not use his finances or credit to secure a loan, that Plaintiff was not listed on any loan applications, purchase documents, deed of trust or insurance documents for the subject property and that Grace quitclaimed her interest in the subject property to the Aiellos in 2003. (Joyce Decl., ¶¶ 11 and 13, Exhs. 4 and 7; Enrico Decl., ¶ 7).[1]

The Aiellos, however, failed to address Plaintiff’s allegation in Paragraph 11 of his complaint that Joyce “sent Plaintiff monthly reminders via text messages regarding Plaintiff’s obligation to pay 50% of the monthly mortgage payment and property taxes due on the Property,” which Plaintiff asserted was evidenced by Exhibit A[2] thereto. Additionally, the Aiellos concede that Plaintiff contributed to the payment of some property taxes. (Enrico Decl., ¶ 10.) The Aiellos further concede that they only paid half of the mortgage payments on the subject property between 2003 and 2020. (Joyce Decl., ¶ 16.)

Regardless, even if it can be said that the Aiellos shifted their moving burden, Plaintiff has met his burden of showing that a triable issue of material fact exists regarding the existence of an oral contract pertaining to ownership of the subject property via his opposing declaration. The motion is denied.