Defendant title insurance company appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Lake County (California) awarding damages to plaintiff and plaintiff appealed the judgment of the trial court directing a verdict in favor of defendant seller and failing to instruct the jury on the subject of interest.

 

Overview: Information on case related to color 21707

 

Plaintiff buyer brought this action against defendant title insurance company and defendant title guaranty company alleging breach of a policy of title insurance issued by defendants. Plaintiff also filed an action against defendant seller alleging mutual mistake in the sale of the real property in question. The alleged mutual mistake consisted in the belief by both seller and buyer that the seller owned the fee title to the real property, whereas, in fact, the seller had no title at all. On appeal, the court held that defendant title insurance company was liable to plaintiff for damages because the property's dedication to the public for use was not excepted under the insurance policy. The court also held that defendant seller was liable to plaintiff as plaintiff was entitled to recover that portion of the purchase price attributable to the property for which it received no title.

 

Outcome

The court affirmed the judgment entered against defendant title insurance company and awarding damages to plaintiff; however the court reversed the judgment directing a verdict in favor of defendant seller and failing to award interest to plaintiff.

 

 

Overview: 

HOLDINGS: [1]-Consistent with the clear legislative intent expressed in Civ. Code, §§ 896, 897, 931, 943, 944, the Right to Repair Act, Civ. Code, §§ 895-945.5, governed a complaint alleging residential construction defects in components or functions for which the act established standards, without making any exception for common law causes of action arising from actual damages; [2]-Because the homeowners did not notify the builder of their claims or otherwise comply with the statutory prelitigation procedure mandated by Civ. Code, § 910, the builder was entitled under Civ. Code, § 930, subd. (b), to a stay of the action until the completion of the statutory prelitigation process; [3]-A writ of mandate under Code Civ. Proc., § 1086, compelling the trial court to order a stay was a proper remedy because a direct appeal would not afford the builder an adequate means to obtain relief.

 

Outcome

Writ petition granted.