Singh v. Reedy CA3

Filed 7/24/24 Singh v. Reedy CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

JASPREET SINGH, C096860

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STKCVURP2019002097) v.

JEFF C. REEDY et al,

Defendants and Appellants.

Plaintiff Jaspreet Singh entered into an agreement to buy a parcel of real property in Lathrop, California from defendants Jeff C. Reedy and Dorinda Reedy. After the agreement was signed, a dispute arose concerning the existence of an asserted commercial lease on the property. The Reedys refused to close escrow on the sale unless Singh assumed the lease as the new owner of the property. Singh initiated an action seeking specific performance of the purchase agreement. An arbitrator found in his favor on that claim, and the trial court confirmed the arbitrator’s award. The Reedys continued to refuse to close escrow unless Singh assumed the lease.

1

Singh then moved for the appointment of an elisor to execute the escrow documents. An elisor is a person designated by a court to perform functions necessary to enforce the court’s orders, typically on behalf of a recalcitrant party. The trial court granted Singh’s motion and appointed the clerk of court to sign the sale documents on the Reedys’ behalf. The Reedys appeal that order, asserting that it is faulty on both procedural and substantive grounds. Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s appointment of an elisor, we affirm. BACKGROUND I. In November 2018, the Reedys listed for sale real property located in Lathrop. In December 2018, Singh tendered an offer on the property using a “California Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions” form contract. The Reedys presented a counteroffer, and Singh accepted. Singh deposited the required funds in escrow, but the Reedys did not sign the escrow documents. Singh demanded specific performance of the written purchase contract, and the parties proceeded to arbitration. In an October 2020 interim arbitration award, the arbitrator concluded that Singh was entitled to specific performance of the agreement. The arbitrator considered the Reedys’ argument that the contract did not disclose that a December 2015 commercial lease between the Reedys and Jeff Reedy’s company, Reedy Mechanical, Inc., encumbered the property and that the terms of the sale contract were therefore too uncertain to support the remedy of specific performance. The arbitrator found that the Reedys had failed to disclose the existence of the lease and concluded that they could not “benefit from their own failure to disclose [the] lease, by using that failure of their own making to defeat a specific performance claim.” The arbitrator rejected Singh’s claim for consequential damages but found he was entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs.