Singh v. Florin Bradshaw Investors CA3
C091603
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 22, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs (Kamar Singh and Kent Hoggan) are assignees of two vacant land purchase agreements: a 70‑lot "Garcia" subdivision owned by Florin Bradshaw Investors, LLC and a 30‑lot "Lynn" subdivision owned by SI Real Estate, Inc.
- Both contracts had a July 26, 2017 close of escrow; plaintiffs failed to close and defendants cancelled the contracts but indicated possible reinstatement on mutually acceptable terms.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants orally agreed to split the Garcia closing into two 35‑lot closings (front 35 to close first) and to permit an extension on the Lynn closing pending FEMA approvals; plaintiffs claim they incurred engineering and other costs in reliance.
- Defendants moved for summary adjudication/summary judgment; the trial court granted judgment for defendants on declaratory relief, promissory estoppel, specific performance, and breach of contract, and awarded defendants attorney fees and costs.
- On appeal plaintiffs argued genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding the alleged extension/oral modification and whether plaintiffs were required to close the back 35 lots first; the Court of Appeal affirmed but did not reach the merits because plaintiffs failed to comply with multiple appellate briefing and record requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary adjudication on declaratory relief, promissory estoppel, and breach of contract was improper because defendants orally agreed to extend closing for lot‑line adjustment and plaintiffs reasonably relied | Plaintiffs: Defendants orally agreed to split and extend the Garcia closing and to extend the Lynn closing pending FEMA approval; plaintiffs relied and incurred costs, creating triable issues | Defendants: No enforceable oral modification; no triable fact issues; plaintiffs breached and cannot show reasonable reliance | Court: Did not reach merits — appeal forfeited by plaintiffs' procedural failures; judgment affirmed |
| Whether summary judgment on specific performance was improper because a factual dispute existed whether plaintiffs were required to close the back 35 lots first | Plaintiffs: They were ready, willing, and able to close on the front 35 and on Lynn once FEMA approval obtained; defendants refused | Defendants: No triable dispute; plaintiffs failed to perform under the contracts | Court: Did not reach merits — issue forfeited by deficient appellate presentation; judgment affirmed |
| Whether appellate court should consider merits despite omissions in the record and briefing | Plaintiffs: Merits show genuine issues; defendants should have counter‑designated record | Defendants: Appeal fails because appellant bears burden to provide an adequate record and proper briefing | Court: Appellant must provide adequate record and reasoned briefing; plaintiffs failed to do so; court declines to consider merits |
| Whether trial court's award of attorney fees should be reversed | Plaintiffs: Sought reversal of fee award in introduction but made no developed argument | Defendants: Fee award appropriate and unchallenged in briefing | Court: Forfeited — no argument presented; fee award not disturbed |
Key Cases Cited
- Silva v. See’s Candy Shops, Inc., 7 Cal.App.5th 235 (2016) (appellant must provide adequate record and fair recitation of evidence when challenging summary judgment)
- Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, 11 Cal.5th 58 (2021) (discussion of standard for certain employment claims; cited re limits on prior authority)
- Lewis v. County of Sacramento, 93 Cal.App.4th 107 (2001) (standard of review for summary judgment/adjudication is de novo)
- Moore v. William Jessup University, 243 Cal.App.4th 427 (2015) (appellate court assumes role of trial court and independently examines the record on de novo review)
- Christoff v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 134 Cal.App.4th 118 (2005) (review limited to issues that appellant identifies and adequately briefs)
- Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com., 214 Cal.App.3d 1043 (1989) (appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error by providing an adequate record)
- Pizarro v. Reynoso, 10 Cal.App.5th 172 (2017) (failure to provide proper headings in brief forfeits issues)
- Nwosu v. Uba, 122 Cal.App.4th 1229 (2004) (arguments unsupported by record citations are forfeited)