Barnard Enterprises v. American Home and Mortgage CA2/2

Filed 11/25/13 Barnard Enterprises v. American home and Mortgage CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

BARNARD ENTERPRISES, INC., B246070

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC093038) v.

AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Frank J. Johnson, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Kyler, Kohler Ostermiller & Sorensen and Lee W. Chen for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Smith Dollar, Rachel M. Dollar, Sherill A. Oates and Austin D. Garner for Defendants and Respondents.

Wright, Finlay & Zak, T. Robert Finlay and Jonathan D. Fink for Defendants and Respondents. *******

Barnard Enterprises, Inc. (appellant) appeals from an order awarding American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.1 and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (respondents) $87,959.50 in attorney fees as the prevailing parties under Civil Code2 section 1717 on a complaint for breach of a 2010 real estate purchase agreement. Appellant claims the trial court erred in failing to apply releases executed in connection with a 2012 real estate purchase agreement of the same property. We affirm the trial court’s order awarding attorney fees. BACKGROUND On March 16, 2011, appellant filed a complaint against respondents regarding the purchase of real property consisting of approximately 8.36 acres in Agoura Hills. The complaint alleged American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. and its “indenture trustee” Deutsche Bank National Trust Company represented that the property included a home site and a ranch site. The home site included the main house, pool and tennis courts. The ranch site included open field areas, a running creek, guest house, ranch, and horse stables. After signing a purchase agreement to buy the property for $1.1 million and making a $50,000 escrow deposit, respondents advised appellant that the purchase contract only applied to the home site. The complaint contained claims for specific performance, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, interference with prospective business advantage and declaratory relief. After respondents demurred to the complaint, appellant filed a first amended complaint on October 12, 2011. The first amended complaint named two additional defendants who had acted as respondents’ real estate agents in the purchase transaction. The trial court subsequently sustained respondents’ demurrer to the first amended complaint. On April 17, 2012, the trial court sustained respondents’ demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend. Attached to the second amended