Lohman v. Ephraim
Filed 1/28/10 Lohman v. Ephraim CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
SLADE LOHMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JC EPHRAIM, Defendant and Appellant. | B207755 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC343601) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION [no change in the judgment] |
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on December 30, 2009, be modified as follows:
1. On page 4, second sentence of the second paragraph, the amount $20,000 is changed to $10,000 so the sentence reads:
Lohman returned $10,000 of the repayment to escrow, where it remained as of the day of trial in February 2008.
2. On page 11, the first paragraph, beginning Ephraim argues is deleted and the following paragraph is inserted in its place:
Ephraim argues Lohman repudiated the purchase agreement by foreclosing on the loans and demanding repayment with interest, in May and June 2005. Ephraim misapprehends the nature of the $20,000 in advances and the effect of Lohmans demand for repayment. The purchase agreement and amendment described the two $10,000 payments as deposits made into escrow by Lohman that were to be released to McCrary temporarily. McCrary agreed to repay the $20,000 at the end of one year. She agreed to pay interest on the $20,000 if escrow did not close as planned. Lohmans demand for repayment with interest one year after the payments were made was no more than a demand that McCrary fulfill her obligations under the agreement. The trial court thus had substantial evidence from which to conclude that Lohmans taking interest upon temporarily released deposits did not constitute a repudiation of the purchase agreement.
3. On page 12, fourth sentence of the second paragraph, the amount $20,000 is changed to $10,000 so the sentence reads:
And Lohman at all times acted as if escrow was ongoing, re-depositing $10,000 in June 2005 and leaving it there up to the day of trial in February 2008.
There is no change in the judgment.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
________________________________________________________________________ CHANEY, Acting P. J. JOHNSON, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.
