Tindell v. Murphy
22 Cal. App. 5th 1239
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Randy and Linda Tindell purchased a single‑family manufactured home in 2005 for $320,000; Christine Bradley performed an appraisal that labeled the home "modular."
- The Tindells later discovered the home was a manufactured home built in 1972 (pre‑June 1976) and in 2009 were unable to refinance because of its classification/age.
- Plaintiffs sued multiple parties over nondisclosure, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, negligence, and related theories; repeated amendments followed multiple demurrers.
- Trial court sustained seller Murphy's demurrer to the fourth amended complaint without leave to amend; the court later granted summary judgment for appraiser Bradley. Plaintiffs appealed.
- Key procedural/legal themes: sham‑pleading doctrine (inconsistent prior verified allegations), pleading specificity for fraud/constructive fraud, privity/duty limits for appraiser liability, and absence of damages/unjust enrichment where lender—not plaintiffs—paid for appraisal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Murphy’s demurrer should have been overruled as to fraud and related claims | Tindell: Murphy knew/should have known the property was a 1972 manufactured home and concealed defects; plaintiffs relied on appraisal and listing | Murphy: Plaintiffs’ own signed disclosure and buyer advisories disclosed/manufacture; pleadings lack specific misrepresentation, reliance, damages; sham pleading bars inconsistent allegations | Affirmed: Demurrer properly sustained; plaintiffs failed to plead fraud/constructive fraud/negligent misrepresentation with required specificity or show reliance/damage; leave to amend properly denied |
| Applicability of sham‑pleading doctrine to bar inconsistency between original verified complaint and later amendments | Tindell: New allegations merely clarify factual ambiguities; doctrine shouldn’t bar correction | Murphy: Plaintiffs previously alleged they were unaware the home was manufactured; omitting that allegation without explanation is sham pleading | Affirmed: Plaintiffs bound by prior verified allegations; sham pleading doctrine applies and supports dismissal |
| Whether Bradley (appraiser) was liable to the buyers for negligence or negligent misrepresentation | Tindell: Appraiser owed duty to persons who would rely on appraisal; plaintiffs relied and suffered inability to refinance | Bradley: Appraisal was prepared for lender; no privity or intent to induce plaintiffs specifically; lender paid for appraisal; plaintiffs knew/accepted appraisal limitations | Affirmed: Summary judgment for Bradley; no triable issue — appraisal prepared for lender, no privity/duty to plaintiffs, no justifiable reliance or damages to plaintiffs; unjust enrichment fails because lender paid |
| Admissibility/impact of plaintiffs’ evidence opposing summary judgment | Tindell: Objected rulings excluded material testimony and expert declaration | Bradley: Excluded evidence was irrelevant or contradicted prior deposition or inapplicable because negligence claim fails as matter of law | Affirmed: Trial court did not abuse discretion excluding the evidence given legal defects in plaintiffs’ claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Herman v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 71 Cal.App.4th 819 (1999) (explaining demurrer function and pleadings interpretation)
- Deveny v. Entropin, Inc., 139 Cal.App.4th 408 (2006) (sham‑pleading doctrine: cannot omit inconsistent prior verified allegations without satisfactory explanation)
- Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 192 Cal.App.4th 1149 (2011) (standards for sustaining demurrer without leave to amend)
- Lazar v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.4th 631 (1996) (elements and pleading requirements for fraud)
- Soderberg v. McKinney, 44 Cal.App.4th 1760 (1996) (appraiser liability to a known class of third‑party investors under negligent misrepresentation theory)
- Willemsen v. Mitrosilis, 230 Cal.App.4th 622 (2014) (distinguishing Soderberg where appraisal was prepared for lender and not intended for buyer reliance)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (2001) (summary judgment burden shifting and standards)