Graf v. Sumpter

DRAPER, P. J.

Although judgment after trial without a jury was in their favor, plaintiffs appeal because they think the findings require a greater award than was granted.

Defendant and his joint venture associate, now deceased, sold to plaintiffs a lot and a house to be constructed thereon. Purchase price was $19,500. Contrary to the seller’s representations, the house was built on filled land which was not properly compacted. The house settled unduly. It was necessary to place concrete pilings under the house to stabilize it, and to repair cracking and crumbling of the structure, all at a cost of $5,196.98. The court found that “at the time of the final completion of the sale, value of the said house had increased to $22,500.00” except for the defects thus repaired, concluded that “the value of the property at the time of purchase exceeded the purchase price by $3,000.00,” and awarded plaintiffs $2,196.98.

Obviously, this figure was reached by deducting the $3,000 “increase in value” from the total of $5,196.98 representing cost of repairs. It is this deduction to which plaintiffs object.

It is conceded that plaintiffs are entitled to recover “the difference between the actual value of that with which [they] parted and the actual value of that which [they] received”

[393]

(Civ. Code, § 3343;

Bagdasarian

v.

Gragnon,

31 Cal.2d 744 [192 P.2d 935]). The issue here is the date as of which those values are to be computed.

In general, damages for fraud are to be assessed as of the date of the fraudulent transaction

(Hancock

v.

Williams,

99 Cal.App.2d 80, 82 [221 P.2d 129]). That would be the date of the contract by which plaintiffs’ right to the property and their obligation to pay therefor became fixed.