Hwang v. Hotaki CA1/1

Filed 2/4/26 Hwang v. Hotaki CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

OLIVIA HWANG et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A173438

v. (Alameda County CHRIS HOTAKI et al., Super. Ct. No. 22CV022586) Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiffs Olivia Hwang and John Su appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants in this dispute about a real estate purchase. We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant Sylvan Investments, Inc. (Sylvan) buys, renovates, and resells residential properties. The company is owned and managed by defendant Basil Yaqub.1 In 2018, Sylvan purchased two adjoining properties in Hayward, and Yaqub had a fence installed down the middle of a driveway

1 Plaintiffs allege that defendant Chris Hotaki, who has no ownership

interest in Sylvan, “was Mr. Yaqub’s business partner in the transaction at issue.”

1

that was between the two properties. Yaqub attested that the fence was installed because it “optimized the privacy of the [p]roperties and also allowed both [p]roperties to use the driveway in an equal fashion.” He further attested that he did not know the location of the property line or if the fence’s “position was commensurate with the true boundary line between the [p]roperties.” No evidence was presented that Yaqub knew or might have known the location of the property line. Hwang and Su later purchased one of the two properties from Sylvan. Yaqub, who is also a real estate agent, was the agent for Sylvan, and Hwang and Su were represented by their own agent. The written information Hwang and Su received about the property at the time of the purchase was extensive and is undisputed, with much of this information being in the form of general advisories as opposed to seller disclosures.2 In the seller’s disclosures Hwang and Su were told, “Fence built in the middle of the driveway. Shared between both homes.” On a different disclosure form, Yaqub circled the word “fence” when indicating that he was aware of “[f]eatures of the property shared in common with adjoining landowners . . . whose use or responsibility for maintenance may have an effect on the subject property.” This form also stated that the property was being sold “as is.” In other materials, Hwang and Su were advised and informed that “[f]ences . . . may not represent the actual boundary lines,” that the sellers “do not provide any guarantee or warranties,” and that the sellers are “not responsible for identifying the location of boundary lines or other items