McNichols v. Nelson Valley Building Co.

California Court of Appeal May 24, 1950 No. Civ. 4057Published

Before: Mussell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action for duress or business compulsion, and that whether the plaintiff acted as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances was a question of fact for the trier of fact.

Issues

Whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for duress or business compulsion.
Whether the question of whether a plaintiff acted as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances is a question of fact for the trier of fact.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is apparent that the complaint is sufficiently drawn to state a cause of action under the doctrine of duress or business compulsion.”

“We conclude in the instant ease that the question of whether plaintiff acted as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances was a question for the trier of facts and that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer herein without leave to amend.”

MUSSELL, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment for defendants after demurrer sustained to the second amended complaint without leave to amend. The action is for the recovery of real property alleged to have been conveyed to defendants by plaintiff under duress or business compulsion. Plaintiff prays for the recovery of the real property or its value, and in addition, seeks damages for certain costs and expenses incurred by reason of the acts of the defendants. The sole ques

[722]

tion for our determination is whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

It is alleged in the complaint, in substance, that the plaintiff, who was then the owner of certain real property described as Lots 1 to 21, inclusive, Tract No. 1063, Flora Gardens, Fresno County, opened an escrow in the city of Los Angeles wherein he agreed to purchase a motel in Pacoima, California. As a part of the purchase price thereof, plaintiff agreed to transfer to the motel owner 10 of the lots situated in Fresno; that plaintiff agreed, among other things, to furnish a policy of title insurance covering the Fresno property; that the escrow agreement contained a provision that the transaction be completed on or before the 25th day of April, 1949; that on the 3d day of March, 1949, the defendants unlawfully and fraudulently commenced an action in the Superior Court of Fresno County against the plaintiff herein entitled ‘

‘

complaint-dissolution of partnership ’ ’; that at the time of the filing of said action, the defendants unlawfully and fraudulently caused to be prepared and recorded a notice of

Us pendens

which notice clouded the title of plaintiff’s property in Fresno to such an extent that the escrow holder refused to furnish a policy of title insurance as required by the escrow agreement; that upon the said refusal of the escrow holder, plaintiff demanded of defendants that they immediately release of record the

lis pendens

notice; that the defendants refused to release it without compensation and demanded that plaintiff convey to them four of the Fresno lots; that these lots had a market value of $6,000; that plaintiff, in order to complete said escrow agreement and to protect himself against any damage suit that would arise out of his failure to complete his part of the escrow agreement on or before the 25th day of April, 1949, and under unlawful compulsion and duress on the part of the defendants toward plaintiff, did deed to the defendants four of the Fresno lots; that the four lots aforesaid were conveyed by plaintiff to defendants without consideration, against his will and under duress; that at the time the defendants filed the complaint for dissolution of partnership, they knew that there was no partnership, as alleged, and that plaintiff was not indebted to defendants, or any of them in any manner whatsoever; that the defendants fraudulently and unlawfully recorded the

McNichols v. Nelson Valley Building Co.

AI Brief

MUSSELL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief