Bezdek v. Fogelberg
Filed 2/9/07 Bezdek v. Fogelberg CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
TERRENCE BEZDEK et al., Cross-complainants and Appellants, v. NORMA FOGELBERG, Cross-defendant and Respondent. | A113941 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 05441227) |
This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after an order sustaining a demurrer. Defendants and appellants Terence and Margaret Bezdek (Bezdeks) claim the trial court erred by sustaining cross-defendant and respondent Norma Fogelberg's demurrer to their cross-complaint after finding no viable cause of action for equitable indemnity. We agree, and reverse.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In January 2004, plaintiffs Steven and Beverly Escamilla (Escamillas) purchased from the Bezdeks the lower of two condominium units in a building located on Franklin Street in San Francisco. The upper condominium unit was owned by Fogelberg, who leased it out as a furnished corporate rental property.
In May 2005, the Escamillas filed a complaint against the Bezdeks, alleging they failed to disclose material facts in connection with the sale. In particular, they alleged a failure to disclose â€
