Avina v. Macias
Filed 6/5/06 Avina v. Macias CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| ERNEST AVINA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. JESUS MACIAS et al., Defendants and Respondents. | G035209 (Super. Ct. No. 03CC11646) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregory H. Lewis, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
John L. Dodd & Associates, John L. Dodd for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Cummings & Kemp, Thomas B. Cummings and Michele Carmeli for Defendants and Respondents.
In 2001, Ernest and Anna Avina struck a deal with their uncle, Jesus Macias, to purchase his home in Santa Ana. Social norms often lead family members to forgo a writing to describe the terms of their agreement, and unfortunately, these parties followed those customs. When Macias tried to sell the house a few years later to a third party, the Avinas protested and filed a lawsuit. They now appeal from the judgment entered after the court entered nonsuit on their causes of action for specific performance and breach of contract. They maintain there were sufficient memorandum to satisfy the statute of frauds (Civ. Code, § 1624), and alternatively, there was substantial evidence of part performance and equitable estoppel sufficient to take the agreement outside the operation of the statute. We conclude the latter claim has merit, and reverse the judgment.
I
Because we are reviewing a judgment after a nonsuit, our summary of the relevant facts is stated in the light most favorable to the Avinas.
For over 10 years, Macias and his wife, Graciela, lived at 1030 South Karen Street in Santa Ana.[1] The residence was also occupied by a family living in the garage and two single people renting two of the three bedrooms.
In May 2001, the Avinas began looking at houses to buy in Macias's neighborhood. They knew Macias very well, and after a long meeting, the Avinas agreed to purchase the Karen Street property. Macias told the Avinas he had a first trust deed of about $160,000 and a second between $10,000 and $20,000. The parties agreed on a $190,000 purchase price with a $30,000 down payment. Finally, they discussed a possible move in date.
Macias asked them to give him a cash down payment â€
