Bova v. Wicks CA2/8

Filed 1/6/14 Bova v. Wicks CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

ANTHONY BOVA et al., B243064

Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NC054922) v.

MATTHEW WICKS et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Douglas M. Haigh, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Corcovelos Law Group and Thomas C. Corcovelos, for Defendants and Appellants.

Law Offices of Lottie Cohen and Lottie Cohen, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

____________________________

Anthony Bova and Lorinda LeBlanc (plaintiffs) filed suit against Matthew and Chi Wicks (defendants). Plaintiffs alleged defendants failed to disclose material facts when selling plaintiffs a duplex. Following a bench trial, the court entered judgment against defendants. On appeal, defendants contend substantial evidence did not support the judgment. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The record on appeal does not include a reporter’s transcript or settled statement. Our summary of facts is taken from the court’s statement of decision. (Loshonkohl v. Kinder (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 510, 512.) In 2007, plaintiffs became interested in a property in Long Beach that was advertised on a real estate website. The advertisement listed the property as a duplex with 2,038 square feet of actual living space, “plus a 650 sq. ft. (approx.) bonus room with ¾ bathroom (all permitted by seller.)” Plaintiffs reviewed the multiple listing service (MLS) information which contained identical language. The MLS listed rents for three units on the property, including $600 in rent from the bonus room. In reliance on the income figures in the MLS, plaintiffs bought the property. During escrow, plaintiffs did not ask if the bonus room was a lawful rental unit. However defendants knew, at least by the time of escrow, that the bonus room permit (1954 permit) explicitly stated the room was not to be used for residential purposes. After plaintiffs purchased the property the existing tenant in the bonus room stayed for several years. In 2009, a power outage in the bonus room led to plaintiffs’ first in-person encounter with defendants. A comment defendants made about work in the kitchen not being permitted made plaintiffs wonder about other aspects of the property. Plaintiffs hired a contractor to complete a thorough inspection of the property. The contractor concluded the wiring in the kitchen was completed without a permit; certain structural changes in the kitchen had no permit; there were many problems with wiring in the building; and the bonus room was not permitted as a residential unit.