Rodes v. Shannon

Decision Date15 August 1961
Citation194 Cal.App.2d 743,15 Cal.Rptr. 349
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesNicholas RODES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Irene SHANNON, also known as Irene Mack, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 25332.

Rager & Olio, Fontana, for appellant.

Fainer & Steele, Los Angeles, for respondent.

ASHBURN, Justice.

Defendant appeals from a summary judgment decreeing specific performance of a contract to convey real property. Appellant contends (1) that the court was without jurisdiction to grant a summary judgment when a demurrer was pending; (2) that the pleadings are insufficient to support a judgment for specific performance; (3) that appellant did not receive proper notice of the date to which the hearing was continued; and (4) that the affidavits are insufficient to entitle plaintiff to a decree of specific performance.

On May 9, 1958, the complaint was filed in which it is alleged that plaintiff's assignor, Blanche Nelson, and defendant, on or about March 6, 1958, entered into a written contract whereby plaintiff's assignor agreed to purchase, and defendant agreed to sell, at a purchase price of $2,400, certain real property in the County of Los Angeles, therein particularly described; that said assignor had fully performed her part of the contract; that 'the reasonable value of the premises aforesaid, is the sum of $300.00 per month;' that Blanche Nelson has duly assigned her claim against defendant. The prayer is for specific performance. No averment as to the value of the premises (except the rental value) or as to adequacy of consideration is made, and no showing, even by way of conclusion, that the contract is fair, just and equitable.

Plaintiff, on July 29, 1960, filed a motion to strike answer and for a summary judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, § 437c, the hearing being noticed for August 15. The motion was supported by the affidavit of plaintiff which merely restates the allegations of the complaint and contains no evidentiary matter. Defendant's counsel filed points and authorities in opposition to the motion, citing 45 Cal.Jur.2d 351-353, for the general proposition that in an action for specific performance of a contract the complaint must allege facts showing that the contract is fair, the consideration adequate, and that it would not be inequitable to enforce it. It is also asserted that 'In our Answer we have filed, in Paragraph IV thereof, a General Demurrer.'

In support of plaintiff's motion an additional affidavit was filed on August 22. It was made by Blanche Nelson. She asserts that she is the assignor of plaintiff in the within action; alleges, as in the complaint, the making of the written contract, the payment by her of the sum of $2,400 into escrow and full performance on her part; that 'said consideration was full, adequate, fair, just and equitable under the circumstances. That said real property was of questionable immediate value and was being purchased by affiant for the purpose of a long range investment. * * *'

The trial court on August 25, denied plaintiff's motion to strike the answer, and granted the summary judgment for specific performance, directing defendant to 'execute any and all necessary papers and documents to perform the written contract,' and to deliver same to plaintiff within thirty days.

Appellant's argument that the pleadings are insufficient to support a judgment for specific performance cannot be sustained. Although the complaint contains no allegations as to the adequacy of the consideration or that the contract is just and reasonable, which allegations are necessary to statement of a cause of action for specific performance which will withstand a general demurrer (Joyce v. Tomasini, 168 Cal. 234, 237, 142 P. 67; Eichholtz v. Nicoll, 66 Cal.App.2d 67, 69, 151 P.2d 664; Mayer v. Beondo, 83 Cal.App.2d 665, 667-668, 189 P.2d 327, 190 P.2d 23; Mackay v. Whitaker, 116 Cal.App.2d 504, 509, 253 P.2d 1021), this defect in the pleading does not control the ruling upon a motion for summary judgment. In House v. Lala, 180 Cal.App.2d 412, 419, 4 Cal.Rptr. 366, 370, we said: 'In view of the disposition to be made of this appeal, only one other point raised by appellants requires consideration, and that is the defendants' contention that the complaint does not state a cause of action. The answer is that the sufficiency of the pleadings cannot be reviewed on an appeal from a summary judgment. Best v. Burch, 132 Cal.App.2d 859, 861, 283 P.2d 262.' To the same effect is Best v. Burch, 132 Cal.App.2d 859, at page 861, 283 P.2d 262, 263, wherein the court said: 'The remainder of appellant's brief is devoted to arguments that the court committed error in striking certain paragraphs of the second answer and defense and the first amended answer, counterclaims and cross-complaint, as well as in sustaining the general demurrer to appellant's third answer in the first amended answer. These questions likewise, are not reviewable on this appeal. It is well settled in this state that any question regarding the sufficiency of the pleadings cannot be reviewed on an appeal from a summary judgment. It is said in Kelly v. Liddicoat, 35 Cal.App.2d 559, 96 P.2d 186, 187, a case in which this subject is exhaustively considered, that 'Ordinarily the only question presented upon an appeal from a summary judgment under section 437c is whether or not the trial court abused its discretion.' In that case appellants, as here, attacked the judgment on the ground that the trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer to their third amended answer. The court points out that the purpose of section 437c is to eliminate all issues which have no basis in fact irrespective of how well they may be pleaded. Therefore an answer may be stricken out although it states a perfect defense if defendant does not by his affidavits show facts to substantiate such defense.'

Krupp v. Mullen, 120 Cal.App.2d 53, 260 P.2d 629, involved an answer to complaint which did not plead estoppel but defendant nevertheless sought to establish that contention by his affidavits in support of his motion for summary judgment. The court said, 120 Cal.App.2d at page 56, 260 P.2d at page 632. 'The affidavits in support of a motion for summary judgment do not constitute a second set of pleadings. 'Their purpose is only to show whether the issues apparently made by the formal pleadings are genuine' [citation], and if either party has competent evidence to offer which would tend to support his side of the issues. However, as the court stated at page 753 of the case last cited, [Gardenwartz v. Equitable, etc. Soc., 23 Cal.App.2d Supp. 745, 68 P.2d 322, 326], 'If either party finds, on the hearing of such a motion, that his pleading is not adequate, either by way of allegation or denial, the court may and should permit him to amend; but in the absence of some request for amendment there is no occasion to inquire about possible issues not raised by the pleadings.' Therefore when the motion for summary judgment was presented to the trial court for consideration, the question, if any, of estoppel stood as waived by defendants.'

The seeming contradiction between Krupp on the one hand and House and Best on the other appears to be dissipated by the opinion in Estate of Kelly, 178 Cal.App.2d 24, at page 29, 2 Cal.Rptr. 634, 637, which says: 'Furthermore, while it may be true in the interest of liberality that even if the answer of the opposing party be defective if the affidavits themselves within the general purview of the pleadings show that a good defense may exist, the summary judgment will ordinarily be denied and amendment permitted (United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Sullivan, 93...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Thornton v. Victor Meat Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 27, 1968
    ...Cal.App.2d 597, 604, 22 Cal.Rptr. 606; Snider v. Snider (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 741, 748, 19 Cal.Rptr. 709; and Rodes v. Shannon (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 743, 748, 15 Cal.Rptr. 349.) There is no requirement, however, that the statutory language be included in the affidavit. In Schessler v. Keck ......
  • Snider v. Snider
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 27, 1962
    ....... 2 The Cowan Oil case is also cited with approval in Rodes.... 2 The Cowan Oil case is also cited with approval in Rodes v. Shannon......
  • Larsen v. Johannes
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 11, 1970
    ...277). Upon a motion for summary judgment, there is no waiver of the right to object to incompetent evidence (Rodes v. Shannon (1961) 194 Cal.App.2d 743, 749, 15 Cal.Rptr. 349). A motion for summary judgment cannot be defeated by statements of inadmissible evidence in the opposing affidavits......
  • Estate and Guardianship of Turk, In re
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 15, 1961
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT