McNichols v. Nelson Valley Bldg. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 May 1950 |
| Citation | 218 P.2d 789,97 Cal.App.2d 721 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | McNICHOLS v. NELSON VALLEY BUILDING CO. et al. Civ. 4057. |
Jerrell Babb, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Ralph Robinson, Fresno, for respondents.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment for defendants after demurrer sustained to the second amended complaint without leave to amend. The action is for the recovery of real property alleged to have been conveyed to defendants by plaintiff under duress or business compulsion. Plaintiff prays for the recovery of the real property or its value, and in addition, seeks damages for certain costs and expenses incurred by reason of the acts of the defendants. The sole question for our determination is whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
It is alleged in the complaint, in substance, that the plaintiff, who was then the owner of certain real property described as lots 1 to 21, inclusive, Tract No. 1063, Flora Gardens, Fresno County, opened an escrow in the city of Los Angeles wherein he agreed to purchase a motel in Pacoima, California. As a part of the purchase price thereof, plaintiff agreed to transfer to the motel owner 10 of the lots situated in Fresno; that plaintiff agreed, among other things, to furnish a policy of title insurance covering the Fresno property; that the escrow agreement contained a provision that the transaction be completed on or before the 25th day of April, 1949; that on the 3rd day of March, 1949, the defendants unlawfully and fraudulently commenced an action in the superior court of Fresno County against the plaintiff herein entitled 'complaint-dissolution of partnership'; that at the time of the filing of said action, the defendants unlawfully and fraudulently caused to be prepared and recorded a notice of lis pendens which notice clouded the title of plaintiff's property in Fresno to such an extent that the escrow holder refused to furnish a policy of title insurance as required by the escrow agreement; that upon the said refusal of the escrow holder, plaintiff demanded of defendants that they immediately release of record the lis pendens notice; that the defendants refused to release it without compensation and demanded that plaintiff convey to them four of the Fresno lots; that these lots had a market value of $6,000; that plaintiff, in order to complete said escrow agreement and to protect himself against any damage suit that would arise out of his failure to complete his part of the escrow agreement on or before the 25th day of April, 1949, and under unlawful compulsion and duress on the part of the defendants toward plaintiff, did deed to the defendants four of the Fresno lots; that the four lots aforesaid were conveyed by plaintiff to defendants without consideration, against his will and under duress; that at the time the defendants filed the complaint for dissolution of partnership, they knew that there was no partnership, as alleged, and that plaintiff was not indebted to defendants, or any of them in any manner whatsoever; that the defendants fraudulently and unlawfully recorded the lis pendens, knowing that when recorded, it would cloud plaintiff's title to the Fresno property and thereby put defendants in a position to force plaintiff into a quick and involuntary settlement with them in order to complete the escrow agreement; that the defendants unlawfully and fraudulently compelled the plaintiff, without his consent, to execute a stipulation reciting, in substance, that the partnership dissolution action had been completely settled out of court and that it should be dismissed with prejudice to the commencement of any other or further action by the plaintiff or the defendants; that the stipulation was recorded in the County of Fresno on the 25th day of April, 1949; that by reason of the wrongful recording of the lis pendens and the failure of the defendants to release it, plaintiff was not able to close the Los Angeles escrow within the time provided, and on May 2, 1949, an action was brought against plaintiff for damages for his failure to complete the escrow within the time specified; that as a result of the filing of said action, plaintiff has incurred expenses in connection with the defense thereof.
It is apparent that the complaint is sufficiently drawn to state a cause of action under the doctrine of duress or business compulsion.
The general rule with regard to duress of this character is as stated in Young v. Hoagland, 212 Cal. 426, 431, 298 P. 996, 998, 75 A.L.R. 654, the where, by reason of the peculiar facts, a reasonably prudent man finds that in order to preserve his property or protect his business interests, it is necessary to make a payment of money which he does not owe, and which in equity and good conscience the receiver should not retain, he may recover it. It is there said, quoting from 20 California Jurisprudence, page 964: "The underlying principle (that money paid under compulsion may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Louisville Title Ins. Co. v. Surety Title & Guar. Co.
...298 P. 996; Thompson Crane & Trucking Co. v. Eyman (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 904, 909, 267 P.2d 1043; McNichols v. Nelson Valley Bldg. Co. (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 721, 722--723, 218 P.2d 789; Steffen v. Refrigeration Discount Corp. (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 494, 498, 205 P.2d 727, and Intl. Fishermen, ......
-
Paramount Properties Co. v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co.
...(See Leeper v. Beltrami (1959) 53 Cal.2d 195, 204, 206, 1 Cal.Rptr. 12, 347 P.2d 12, 77 A.L.R.2d 803; McNichols v. Nelson Valley Bldg. Co. (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 721, 722--723,) Paramount naturally knew more in July 1964 then in December 1963, having been served in April 1964 with the complai......
-
Leeper v. Beltrami
...Development Co. v. O'Leary, 118 Cal. App. 131, 4 P.2d 802; Ezmirlian v. Otto, 139 Cal.App. 486, 34 P.2d 774; McNichols v. Nelson Valley Bldg. Co., 97 Cal.App.2d 721, 218 P.2d 789. Plaintiffs in the instant case have brought themselves within the doctrine enunciated by the cases. It is alleg......
-
Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Granite Const. Co.
...of believing that such threats would be carried out. (Young vs. Hoagland, 212 Cal. 426 [298 P. 996, 75 A.L.R. 654]; McNichols vs. Nelson Valley Bldg. Co., 97 Cal.App.2d 721 ; Leeper vs. Beltrami, 53 Cal.2d 195 [1 Cal.Rptr. 12, 347 P.2d 12, 77 A.L.R.2d 803]; International Fishermen etc. [& A......
-
Quasi Contracts
...at 1133, citing Steffen v. Refrigeration Discount Corp. (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 494 and McNichols v. Nelson Valley Building Co. (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 721.) Once again, the cases allowing recovery focus on defendant’s knowledge of the falsity of defendant’s claim; it is the element of knowing fa......
-
Quasi-Contracts
...at 1133, citing Steffen v. Refrigeration Discount Corp. (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 494 and McNichols v. Nelson Valley Building Co. (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 721.) Once again, the cases allowing recovery focus on defendant’s knowledge of the falsity of defendant’s claim; it is the element of knowing fa......
-
Quasi-Contracts
...at 1133, citing Steffen v. Refrigeration Discount Corp. (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 494 and McNichols v. Nelson Valley Building Co. (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 721.) Once again, the cases allowing recovery focus on defendant’s knowledge of the falsity of defendant’s claim; it is the element of knowing fa......