Van Slyke v. Gibson

Opinion

GILBERT, P. J.

In a real estate transaction dispute, defendants file a cross-complaint against plaintiff and his real estate broker. Before trial, defendants dismiss plaintiff from their cross-complaint and the trial court severs their cross-complaint. Defendants prevail at trial. The real estate purchase agreement disallows attorney fees to a prevailing party who does not first attempt mediation before filing an action. Here, defendants are not required to seek mediation prior to recovery of their attorney fees.

Mike Van Slyke appeals an order awarding $94,974 attorney fees plus costs to Oliver E. Gibson, Jr., and Joni Ruth Gibson. We affirm.

[1298]

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 8, 2004, Van Slyke made a written offer to purchase 23 acres of undeveloped property located at 2222 Richview Road in Santa Maria, owned by the Gibsons. The offer provided for a 90-day escrow and the obtaining of financing for most of the purchase price of $875,000.

On May 10, 2004, the Gibsons made a counteroffer with an $899,000 purchase price and a 30-day escrow. The counteroffer also stated; “Upon acceptance, buyer to provide prequalification letter from lender, as well as written confirmation from lender that they will loan on acreage with existing modular home.” Van Slyke accepted and executed the counteroffer, but did not provide the lender prequalification and confirmation letters. Consequently, on May 17, 2004, the Gibsons accepted an all-cash purchase offer of $899,000 from David Daniels and Jennifer Daniels.

On June 1, 2004, Van Slyke brought an action for breach of contract and specific performance against the Gibsons. The Danielses also brought a separate action for specific performance against the Gibsons. Van Slyke and the Danielses filed separate lis pendens against the Richview Road property.

On July 8, 2004, the Gibsons filed a cross-complaint in the Van Slyke action, against Van Slyke and his realtor, Monika Draggoo. The Gibsons alleged causes of action for intentional and negligent interference with an economic relationship. Two months later, the Gibsons dismissed Van Slyke from the cross-complaint. The trial court later severed the cross-complaint from the Van Slyke action.