Dow v. Burrell CA2/8

Filed 11/22/24 Dow v. Burrell CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

ANDREW DOW, B330855

Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19CHCV00604 v.

MELVIN JAMES BURRELL et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Melvin D. Sandvig, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Michael Labrum and Michael Labrum for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Offices of Martin S. Kovalsky and Martin S. Kovalsky for Defendants and Respondents. ____________________ Andrew Dow purchased a house from Tonette Wright. Unhappy with the purchase, Dow then sued Wright, her

real estate agent, and various companies with which the real estate agent was connected. The trial court found against Dow and awarded certain of the defendants attorney fees based on a provision in the purchase agreement and Civil Code section 1717. Dow appeals this award. We affirm. Wright listed her house in Canyon Country for sale with the assistance of her broker Melvin Burrell. After a few reductions in price and listing the property as a short sale, Dow entered into negotiations with Wright and Burrell. The process did not go smoothly, with Wright demanding a higher price than that listed and refusing to move out on the agreed upon date. After Dow took possession of the property, he discovered allegedly undisclosed defects. Dow sued Wright, Burrell, and Capital Executive Realty, Inc., Lea Crest Realty, and Regal Services Group, escrow and real estate brokerage companies Dow alleged were Burrell’s alter egos. Dow obtained a default against Wright. Dow dismissed Lea Crest at the beginning of trial. Trial then proceeded as to Burrell, Capital Executive, and Regal Services, on claims of breach of contract, breach of non-fiduciary duties, breach of fiduciary duties, fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, and violation of the Unfair Competition Law. The trial court found for Burrell and his entities on all counts and entered judgment accordingly. Burrell and his entities then moved for attorney fees under the purchase agreement and Civil Code section 1717. Paragraph 25 of the purchase agreement states: “In any action, proceeding, or arbitration between Buyer and Seller arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing Buyer or Seller shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs from the non-prevailing Buyer