O'Banion v. Paradiso
| Decision Date | 16 July 1964 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 393 P.2d 682 Emory O'BANION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Bernard PARADISO et al., Defendants and Appellants. S. F. 21400. |
Harold A. Parichan, Fresno, and William B. Boone, Santa Rosa, for defendants and appellants.
Linneman, Burgess, Telles & Van Atta and Jess P. Telles, Jr., Dos Palos, for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendants Paradiso appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action to compel specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property and to quiet title thereto.
Facts: On February 23, 1961, defendant Salvador H. Orduno signed a written memorandum offering to sell to plaintiff all of his 'rights & title' to certain real property for $2,000, with a 60-day period of acceptance.
Plaintiff immediately accepted the proposal and offered to pay the $2,000 at that time, but Orduno stated he did not need the money then and requested that it be put in escrow together with the money necessary to pay off a note and deed of trust to one B. Paradiso, the owner thereof, which plaintiff agreed to pay.
Plaintiff went to a title company the same day and requested a preliminary title report on the property. On March 21 the title company received information as to the amount needed to satisfy the deed of trust, on which a notice of default had been recorded, and immediately contacted plaintiff, requesting that such amount be deposited in escrow. The deposit was made by plaintiff the same day.
On or about March 15 defendant Dominic Paradiso was asked by an employee of the title company to pick up a form of request for reconveyance to be filled in by B. Paradiso, the owner of the note and deed of trust, as to the balance owed. Dominic was told at the time that the note on which foreclosure proceedings had been commenced was going to be paid. This form, however, was never returned to the title company, and the amount necessary to satisfy the note and deed of trust was determined in another manner.
On March ii defendant Orduno told Dominic that plaintiff was going to buy the property and was supposed to have let him know, but that he had not heard from plaintiff and guessed plaintiff was no longer interested in buying it.
On March 24 plaintiff met Orduno in front of the Wells Fargo Bank in Los Banos and notified him that the money for the property was on deposit at the title company and that all Orduno had to do to obtain the money was go there and sign the deed. However, Orduno replied that he was selling the property to someone else.
Immediately prior to this conversation, inside the bank, defendants Paradiso had been engaged in some of the details of completing their purchase of the property. Checks totaling $2,000 had been executed by them, but no documents had yet been signed either by the Paradisos or the Ordunos.
Plaintiff testified that at that time he told Orduno, in the presence of Bernard and Dominic Paradiso and Mrs. Orduno, that he had considered he had bought the property, and that Mr. Orduno stated, 'Well, that is right.' However, the sale to defendants Paradiso was completed that day, and plaintiff remarked that he would hold Orduno to the agreement of February 23.
On March 29 plaintiff filed suit against the Ordunos and defendants Paradiso to compel specific performance by the Ordunos and to quiet title to the property as against the Paradisos.
The Ordunos, without an attorney, filed an answer admitting that they had 'agreed and offered to sell all of his right, title and interest, and any right, title and interest which his wife, Delfina G. Orduno, might own, in and to said real property to plaintiff herein,' but denied that Delfina G. Orduno assented and agreed to said conveyance in accordance with the terms of the written instrument.
The answer of defendants Paradiso denied the allegations of the first cause of action for lack of information or belief and generally and specifically denied each and all the allegations with regard to the second and third causes of action.
After trial without a jury, the court found in favor of plaintiff, and specifically found that Orduno had agreed to sell the property to plaintiff for $2,000, that it was Orduno's intention to include in said offer all the right, title, and interest of Mrs. Orduno, and that she had assented and agreed to said conveyance in accordance with the terms of the written instrument.
The court further found that plaintiff had accepted said offer of February 23, 1961, on the day it was made, and while it was in full force and effect, and offered to pay said $2,000; that plaintiff had, in accordance with Orduno's request, deposited the funds with the Merced County Title Company, together with the sums necessary to pay off the deed of trust under which foreclosure proceedings had commenced; that said offer was fair, equitable, and just; and that the acceptance had been made within the 60-day period.
It was also found that notwithstanding the acceptance of the offer, Mr. and Mrs. Orduno gave a deed to the property to defendants Paradiso, each of whom had received the same with full and complete notice and knowledge of the rights of plaintiff in and to said premises, and that defendants Paradiso had no right, title, or interest in said premises.
As a conclusion of law, the court found that plaintiff was entitled to judgment requiring the Ordunos to convey the real property to him; requiring Dominic Paradiso, the beneficiary under the deed of trust, to reconvey said real property on payment to him of the sums due on said deed of trust; cancelling the deed conveying the property to defendants Paradiso; declaring plaintiff to be the owner of the land; and declaring that defendants Paradiso have no right, title, or interest in and to said real estate.
Questions: First. Could defendants Paradiso invoke the defense of the statute of frauds?
Yes. Plaintiff contends that defendants Paradiso cannot assert the defense of the statute of frauds, because they were not parties to the alleged contract.
Third persons who are in privity with a party to a contract can take...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kimm v. Andrews
...v. Logan, 149 Ill. 588, 36 N.E. 946 (Ill.1894), Goklke v. Davis, 279 S.W.2d 369 (Tex.Civ.App.1955), O'Banion v. Paradiso, 61 Cal.2d 559, 39 Cal.Rptr. 370, 393 P.2d 682 (Cal.1964) with respect to any evidence of any agreement for an extension of time for settlement of the Kimm contract, or w......
-
United States v. $1,074,900.00 in U.S. Currency
...to a contract can take advantage of a statute of frauds defense in the same way that party would do so. O'Banion v. Paradiso, 61 Cal.2d 559, 39 Cal.Rptr. 370, 393 P.2d 682, 684 (1964). The government could argue that it is in privity with the Mishras through the Dheris. The Dheris waived al......
-
Dufresne v. Elite Insurance Co.
...conferred on the broker the authority to Enter into the deletion agreement on behalf of the insured. (See O'Banion v. Paradiso, 61 Cal.2d 559, 563, 39 Cal.Rptr. 370, 393 P.2d 682; Angus v. London, 92 Cal.App.2d 282, 285, 206 P.2d To hold that uninsured motorist coverage can be excluded by a......
-
Safarian v. Govgassian
...take advantage of the statute of frauds in the same manner as the contracting party could have. ( O’Banion v. Paradiso (1964) 61 Cal.2d 559, 562, 39 Cal.Rptr. 370, 393 P.2d 682 ( O’Banion ).) "There are no similar policies involved where the third person seeking to raise the statute is not ......