Ioppolo v. Smith
Filed 8/2/10
Ioppolo v. Smith CA3
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT
(Placer)
----
GARY IOPPOLO,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CHARLEY SMITH,
Defendant and Appellant.
C060286
(Super.
Ct. No. SCV20656)
Plaintiff Gary
Ioppolo entered into an agreement with defendant Charley Smith to purchase 30
acres of unimproved land for $300,000.
The transaction hit a snag when Ioppolo learned Smith's 30-acre parcel
had not been legally separated from Smith's larger 56.5-acre parcel. Smith agreed to transfer the entire parcel to
Ioppolo, with the understanding that Smith had two years to obtain a lot split
from Placer
County that would legally divide the 30 acres from the larger 56.5-acre
parcel. Once Smith obtained the lot
split, Ioppolo would reconvey the 26.5-acre parcel to Smith.
Five years and
some litigation later, Smith failed to obtain the lot split legally dividing
the parcel. Ioppolo filed suit to
confirm he owned the entire 56.5-acre parcel.
Following a court trial, the trial court transferred the entire parcel
to Ioppolo. Smith appeals, arguing the
trial court's action amounts to forfeiture and constitutes an abuse of
discretion. We shall affirm the
judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The
Transaction
Smith owned a
single piece of unimproved property in Placer
County consisting of 56.5
acres. At one time, the acreage was two
separate parcels. In 1996 Smith
completed a lot line adjustment that consolidated the two parcels into one. Despite having two parcel numbers, the
property is currently one parcel.
In 2002 Smith
listed 30 acres of the property for sale.
In May 2002 Ioppolo and Smith entered into a â€
| Description | Plaintiff Gary Ioppolo entered into an agreement with defendant Charley Smith to purchase 30 acres of unimproved land for $300,000. The transaction hit a snag when Ioppolo learned Smith's 30-acre parcel had not been legally separated from Smith's larger 56.5-acre parcel. Smith agreed to transfer the entire parcel to Ioppolo, with the understanding that Smith had two years to obtain a lot split from Placer County that would legally divide the 30 acres from the larger 56.5 acre parcel. Once Smith obtained the lot split, Ioppolo would reconvey the 26.5-acre parcel to Smith. Five years and some litigation later, Smith failed to obtain the lot split legally dividing the parcel. Ioppolo filed suit to confirm he owned the entire 56.5-acre parcel. Following a court trial, the trial court transferred the entire parcel to Ioppolo. Smith appeals, arguing the trial court's action amounts to forfeiture and constitutes an abuse of discretion. Court shall affirm the judgment. |
| Rating |
