Lee v. Goepp
Filed 7/20/06 Lee v. Goepp CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
| CARA LEE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ROBERT C. GOEPP, Defendant and Respondent. | B182102 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YC049774) |
APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Jean E. Matusinka, Judge. Affirmed.
Polk & Berke and Jeff Berke for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Palmer, Lombardi & Donohue, Thomas E. Lombardi, Lindsay A. Ayers, and Rafael R. Pacquing for Defendant and Respondent.
________________________
Plaintiffs and appellants Cara Lee and Stephan Mundwiler, as trustees of the Lee & Mundwiler Profit Sharing Plan (the Plan) appeal from the judgment of dismissal entered after the demurrer of defendant and respondent Robert C. Goepp was sustained without leave to amend. The Plan contends the rules pertaining to the filing of compulsory cross-complaints (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.30, subd. (a)) are not applicable.[1] We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In Goepp v. The Lee & Mundwiler Profit Sharing Plan (case No. B177922), filed concurrently with this opinion, we provide a detailed recitation of the parties' relationship and the business transaction underlying this appeal. Here, it is sufficient to note that the Plan purchased the Manhattan Beach Hotel, located at 4017 Highland Avenue in Manhattan Beach (the Property), in 1997 for $1.1 million. On April 5, 2001, the Plan and Goepp entered into a written agreement pursuant to which Goepp paid $1,000 for a five-year option to purchase the Property for $1.15 million dollars. That same day, the Plan and Goepp entered into a written lease agreement for the Property. As a result of Goepp's breach of the lease, on August 2, 2002, the Plan was awarded possession of the Property in an unlawful detainer action.
Meanwhile, on June 24, 2002, Goepp filed an action for breach of contract and declaratory relief seeking a declaration that, notwithstanding the order of possession, the option was still enforceable.[2] Goepp subsequently dismissed the breach of contract cause of action. Before he did so, Lee, as a trustee of the Plan, answered the complaint and filed a cross-complaint for fraud, rescission and/or reformation of the option agreement on the grounds of fraud and mistake, and a declaration that the option was unenforceable. The gravaman of Lee's cross-complaint was that Goepp fraudulently promised to add a provision to the option agreement making it and the lease coterminous, but failed to do so. In addition, the cross-complaint alleged that Goepp failed to properly maintain the Property, failed to pay insurance and failed to make promised improvements to the Property.
In June 2004, after the trial court sustained without leave to amend Goepp's demurrer to the fourth amended cross-complaint--essentially on the grounds that the option agreement was an integrated written instrument and, as such, the parol evidence rule barred consideration of any prior oral agreements--Goepp obtained summary judgment in case No. B177922 (the â€
