Hoffman v. 162 North Wolfe CA6
228 Cal. App. 4th 1178
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Hoffman and 162 North Wolfe LLC own adjacent commercial properties on North Wolfe Road; 162 LLC claims a prescriptive easement for ingress/egress over 170 Wolfe and a landscape easement on a triangular area abutting North Wolfe Road.
- Hoffmans purchased 170 Wolfe in March 2010; BackProject became a tenant at 170 Wolfe in 2009.
- Vehicles servicing 162 Wolfe and Law Firm employees were observed crossing onto 170 Wolfe both before and after BackProject’s occupancy.
- Owens, a 162 LLC member, asserted a prescriptive easement based on long-standing use but did not disclose this claim to Hoffmans or their broker before Hoffmans’ purchase.
- 162 LLC filed suit to quiet title and for injunctive relief; Hoffmans cross-claimed for fraud (concealment/suppression) and intentional misrepresentation.
- The trial court granted summary adjudication as to the fraud claims, and after settlement a judgment was entered; Hoffmans appealed arguing triable issues remained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to disclose in fraud claim | Hoffmans contend 162 LLC owed a duty to disclose its easement claim. | 162 LLC argues no fiduciary/transactional relationship created a duty to disclose. | No duty to disclose; no triable issue. |
| Justifiable reliance for concealment | Hoffmans relied on Owens’ statement to ‘take care of it’ about trespassing vehicles. | Reliance not justifiable given lack of relationship and ambiguous statement. | Reliance not justifiable as a matter of law. |
| Intentional misrepresentation (implied/false promise) | Owens’ statement constituted an implied misrepresentation or false promise. | No justifiable reliance; statement too vague to be actionable. | No justifiable reliance; claim fails. |
| Triable issues on governance of summary adjudication | There were factual disputes on whether a duty existed and whether reliance was justified. | No material triable issues; summary adjudication proper. | Affirmed summary adjudication; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- LiMandri v. Judkins, 52 Cal.App.4th 326 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1997) (duty to disclose depends on relationship; lack of relationship defeats concealment claim)
- Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell, 10 Cal.4th 1226 (1995) (fraud elements; justifiable reliance required)
- Guido v. Koopman, 1 Cal.App.4th 837 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1991) (reasonableness of reliance; expert knowledge affects justifiability)
- Hinesley v. Oakshire Town Center, 135 Cal.App.4th 289 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2005) (summary judgment on fraud requires absence of justifiable reliance in commercial setting)
- Pavicich v. Santucci, 85 Cal.App.4th 382 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2000) (no direct relationship; absence of disclosure not actionable in absence of duty)
- Jones v. ConocoPhilips Co., 198 Cal.App.4th 1187 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2011) (pleading stage fraud concealment requires transactional relationship; not controlling here)