Soderberg v. McKinney
Decision Date | 03 May 1996 |
Docket Number | No. B085773,B085773 |
Citation | 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 635,44 Cal.App.4th 1760 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3173, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5189 Alan D. SODERBERG, as Trustee, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Gary McKINNEY, Defendant and Respondent. |
Law Offices of Thomas B. McCullough, Jr., Thomas B. McCullough, Jr., Marina Del Rey, and Lauriann C. Wright, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Callahan, McCune & Willis, Edward L. Schumann, Tustin, and John J. Tasker, W. Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent.
In Bily v. Arthur Young & Co. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 370, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 51, 834 P.2d 745, the Supreme Court held that an auditor may be liable to a third party--someone other than a client--who relies on an audit report containing negligent misrepresentations, provided the auditor intended that the third party use the report. In this case, we address whether such liability extends to a real
estate appraiser who, although retained by a mortgage broker, knows that his report will be used by potential investors in the brokered loan. We hold that it does.
For several years, Alan Soderberg, in his capacity as the trustee for A.D.S. Planning, Inc., Profit Sharing Plan Trust (the "Trust"), has invested pension money in loans secured by first and second deeds of trust. The Trust employs certain criteria in deciding whether to purchase a particular trust deed. The main factor is loan-to-value ratio, i.e., the difference between the total outstanding loans and the appraised value of the property. If a loan under consideration (together with any existing loans) exceeds 70 percent of the property's value, the Trust will not make the investment. The value of the property is established by a licensed appraiser.
In 1990, National Home Loans, Inc. ("Home Loans"), a mortgage broker, contacted Soderberg about investing $75,000 in a second deed of trust on residential property located in Redondo Beach, California. He was told that the appraised value of the property was $670,000 and that the balance due on the first deed of trust was $341,000. Because this information met the Trust's criteria for making a loan, Soderberg verbally committed to invest $50,000 pending receipt of the pertinent documents, including the appraisal report.
After receiving the appraisal, prepared by Gary McKinney, a certified real estate appraiser, Soderberg confirmed that McKinney had valued the property at $670,000. Relying on that figure, Soderberg sent Home Loans a check for $50,000. He also contacted Roosevelt and Leola Ragland about this investment, and they contributed the remaining $25,000 of the loan. In exchange for these funds, Soderberg received a second trust deed.
The borrowers defaulted on both the first and the second deeds of trust. Soderberg then learned for the first time that the true value of the property was between $450,000 and $500,000, leaving virtually no equity to protect the Trust's and the Raglands' investments. As a result, the Trust foreclosed on the second deed of trust, reinstated the first trust deed, and made monthly payments on the first trust deed. However, the Trust eventually stopped making those payments, and the holder of the first trust deed foreclosed on the property. Neither the Trust nor the Raglands would have invested in the loan had they known the true value of the property.
In July 1991, the Trust and the Raglands filed this action against McKinney and Home Loans, alleging causes of action for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, suppression of fact, and breach of contract. 1 In October 1993, McKinney moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, for summary adjudication on each cause of action. As to the negligent misrepresentation claim, McKinney argued that he owed no duty to plaintiffs. 2 On the contract claim, he asserted that there was no contract between plaintiffs and himself. The trial court (Commissioner Bruce Mitchell, presiding) granted summary adjudication on the claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract but denied the motion as to the other claims.
Thereafter, plaintiffs dismissed the remaining causes of action (for fraud and suppression of fact) without prejudice as to McKinney only. 3 Home Loans agreed to pay plaintiffs $250,000, and plaintiffs, in turn, agreed to the entry of judgment. In June 1994, the trial court (Judge William Beverly, presiding) entered judgment decreeing that plaintiffs recover $250,000 from Home Loans and that judgment be entered against plaintiffs as to McKinney. Plaintiffs filed a timely appeal from the judgment, challenging the
trial court's summary adjudication ruling in McKinney's favor.
In reviewing a summary adjudication ruling, the moving party's evidence is strictly construed while that of the opposing party is liberally construed. (Hanooka v. Pivko (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1558, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 70.) We accept as undisputed facts only those portions of the moving party's evidence that are not contradicted by the opposing party's evidence. (Kelleher v. Empresa Hondurena de Vapores, S.A. (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 52, 56, 129 Cal.Rptr. 32.) In other words, the facts alleged in the evidence of the party opposing summary adjudication must be accepted as true. (Zeilman v. County of Kern (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 1174, 1179, fn. 3, 214 Cal.Rptr. 746.)
Summary adjudication is appropriate if all the papers submitted show that a cause of action lacks merit as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f).) (Hanooka v. Pivko, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 1558, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 70, citations omitted; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (o )(2).) We construe the evidence most favorably to the party opposing summary adjudication and resolve any doubts against the granting of the motion. (Jackson v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1830, 1835-1837, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 913.) 4
In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that McKinney negligently misrepresented the value of the property, that he had no reasonable grounds for believing the stated valued to be correct, that he prepared the appraisal report with the intent to induce plaintiffs to invest in the second trust deed, and that they relied on his appraisal to their detriment.
Plaintiffs contend that Bily v. Arthur Young & Co., supra, 3 Cal.4th 370, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 51, 834 P.2d 745 (hereafter Bily ) precluded summary adjudication of their negligent misrepresentation claim. In Bily, the Supreme Court addressed the question of "whether and to what extent an accountant's duty of care in the preparation of an independent audit of a client's financial statements extends to persons other than the client." (Id. at p. 375, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 51, 834 P.2d 745.) There, a company's auditor had issued an unqualified or "clean" audit opinion on the company's financial statements. In reliance on the auditor's opinion, several third parties invested in the company. The investments went sour, and the investors sued the auditor for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. A jury found for the investors on the general negligence claim only, and the Court of Appeal affirmed that portion of the verdict.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that "an auditor's liability for general negligence in the conduct of an audit of its [client's] financial statements is confined to the client With respect to negligent misrepresentation claims, the court adopted the analysis of the Restatement Second of Torts, explaining as follows: (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 392, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 51, 834 P.2d 745, italics added.)
i.e., the person who contracts for or engages the audit services. Other persons may not recover on a pure negligence theory." (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 406, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 51, 834 P.2d 745.) However, the court approved a negligent misrepresentation claim by third parties, stating: "There is, however, a further narrow class of persons who, although not clients, may reasonably come to receive and rely on an audit report and whose existence...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Knapp v. Doherty, H026670.
...the proposed amendment, the court appropriately exercised its discretion by denying leave to amend. (Cf. Soderberg v. McKinney (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1760, 1773, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 635 [leave to amend properly denied where proposed amendment fails to state a cause of 17. The application requeste......
-
Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC
...Equity Residential Bri a rwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1023, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 453.) In Soderberg v. McKinney (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1760, 1763, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 635 (Soderberg ), a mortgage broker engaged in the business of arranging investments in mortgage loans. In order to sec......
-
Cal. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Moody's Investors Serv., Inc.
...in a professional capacity.” (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 410, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 51, 834 P.2d 745. See also Soderberg v. McKinney (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1760, 1768, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 635 [while “Bily involved the liability of accountants (or auditors), we see no reason why its discussion should b......
-
Lackner v. North
...is held 30 days prior to the actual trial date rather than the originally scheduled trial date. (Soderberg v. McKinney (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1760, 1765, fn. 4, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 635 [trial court may properly hear summary adjudication motion after first trial date where matter continued several......
-
Fraud and negligent misrepresentation
...Cal. App. 3d 1038, 1047, 281 Cal. Rptr. 640 (1991). The defendant need not know plaintiff’s actual identity. Soderberg v. McKinney, 44 Cal. App. 4th 1760, 1764, 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 635 (1996) (citing Bily v. Arthur Young and Co. , 3 Cal. 4th 370, 408, 11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 51 (1992) (court allowed ......
-
The Top Ten Real Property Cases of 2014
...Ass'n, 59 Cal. 4th at 585.5. Willemsen v. Mitrosilis, 230 Cal. App. 4th 622 (2014).6. Bily, 3 Cal. 4th 370.7. Soderberg v. McKinney, 44 Cal. App. 4th 1760 (1996).8. See, e.g., Nymark v. Heart Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 231 Cal. App. 3d 1089 (1991) (holding that lender owes no duty of care to a......