Blanch v. Young
| Decision Date | 08 March 1984 |
| Citation | 200 Cal.Rptr. 9,152 Cal.App.3d 1016 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Daniel Lee BLANCH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Richard E. YOUNG, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 30480. |
Plaintiff appeals from summary judgment in favor of defendant attorney in a legal malpractice action.
The subject matter of this action is a renewable five-year lease of commercial real property which ran from August 4, 1975 to August 4, 1980. The master lease granted the original tenant the right to renew "[a]t the expiration of this lease" for an additional five years, from August 4, 1980, to August 4, 1985, at the same $500 monthly rent. It did not contain an antiassignment or antisublease clause, nor was the time or method of exercising the renewal option specified. The original tenant first sublet the premises to "Fender Bender, Inc. Daniel Lee Blanch, Pres." and then assigned his interest in the lease to Blanch. 1
The sublease gave Blanch the right to renew the lease for five years at $500 per month, provided the option was exercised in writing at least ninety days before the lease expired. The assignment gave Blanch "all [the original tenant's] right, title and interest" in the master lease.
After obtaining the assignment, Blanch sublet the premises to a third person, who also had the option to renew the sublease for five years at $500 per month on the same conditions as in the sublease to Blanch, except the ninety day cutoff date was April 14, 1980.
On September 16, 1980, the landlord filed a verified complaint in unlawful detainer against original tenant, Blanch, and Blanch's sublessee in possession of the premises. Attorney Richard E. Young, retained by Blanch in June or July 1980 to handle legal aspects of the lease, represented all defendants in the unlawful detainer action. The defendants' answer, verified by the original tenant, but not Blanch, asserted all defendants exercised "an option to renew the lease for the same terms and conditions for an additional five-year period by so orally advising [the landlord] between the first week of July, 1980, at the subject premises." The landlord prevailed in the unlawful detainer action.
Blanch then filed a verified complaint against Young for legal malpractice, claiming Young negligently failed to exercise Blanch's option to renew the lease under the terms of Blanch's sublease with the original tenant, i.e., written notice at least ninety days before expiration of the lease. Blanch claimed $36,000 in damages, the difference between the fair rental value of the property to a sublessee, $1100 per month for five years, and the $500 per month he would pay under the renewed lease.
Young asserted Blanch was bound by the admission in the verified answer to the unlawful detainer--which Young prepared--that each defendant exercised the option to renew the lease for five years at $500 per month. He argued Blanch suffered no damage as a consequence of any error...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ordway v. Superior Court
...the pleadings and allowed leave to replead where an amendment could save the plaintiff's lawsuit. (See, e.g., Blanch v. Young (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1016, 1019-1020, 200 Cal.Rptr. 9.) For the reasons following, however, that procedure would be inappropriate Historically, the doctrine of assu......
-
Denton v. City of Fullerton, G009373
...pleadings. (Centinela Hospital Assn. v. City of Inglewood, supra, 225 Cal.App.3d at p. 1595, 275 Cal.Rptr. 901; Blanch v. Young (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1016, 1019, 200 Cal.Rptr. 9; C.L. Smith Co. v. Roger Ducharme, Inc. (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 735, 745, 135 Cal.Rptr. 483.) Therefore, although th......
-
Nazar v. Rodeffer
...374; Parsons Manufacturing Corp. v. Superior Court (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1151, 1156, 203 Cal.Rptr. 419; Blanch v. Young (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1016, 1019, 200 Cal.Rptr. 9; Barnett v. Delta Lines, Inc. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 674, 682, 187 Cal.Rptr. 219.) While the trial court did not specify p......
-
Foster v. County of San Luis Obispo
...sufficiency of the complaint, and is allowed as being in legal effect a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Blanch v. Young (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1016, 1019, 200 Cal.Rptr. 9.)3 Section 815.4 provides: "A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by a tortious act or omission ......