Poon v. George Realty The Heights CA2/2

Filed 1/29/15 Poon v. George Realty The Heights CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JENNIE POON et al., B255145

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC490187) v.

GEORGE REALTY THE HEIGHTS, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Holly E. Kendig, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Robert J. Wheeler for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester, David Gorney, Candace E. Kallberg for Defendants and Respondents.

___________________________________________________

Plaintiffs sued defendants, real estate brokers and agents, after plaintiffs purchased a property and fixed it up to resell it, only to discover that they acquired the property at a junior trust deed sale. Plaintiffs lost their entire investment when the senior trust deed was foreclosed. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants advised them the purchase was suitable for their needs and did not warn them that the property was subject to a senior trust deed. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend on the bases that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the statute of frauds and plaintiffs failed to allege a breach of duty. We reverse. BACKGROUND The Original Complaint Plaintiffs and appellants Jennie Poon, Jacob Poon, Nancy Fong, Jonathan Poon, Bryson Fong, and Danny Wong filed suit against defendants and respondents George Realty The Heights, Inc. (George Realty), High Ten Partners, Inc. (High Ten), and Mei- Miao Kuo in August 2012. Briefly, the complaint alleged that plaintiffs engaged defendants to advise in finding and purchasing a house to fix up and resell at a profit. Plaintiffs identified a house in Cerritos for potential purchase at a trustee’s sale, and defendants advised plaintiffs that the house was suitable for their needs. Only after acquiring the property and remodeling it did plaintiffs learn from defendants that they had purchased the property at a junior trust deed sale, and that the property was still subject to a large senior trust deed. The senior trust deed was subsequently foreclosed, and plaintiffs lost their entire investment. Plaintiffs sued defendants for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of oral contract, and breach of implied-in- fact contract. High Ten filed a demurrer, arguing that there was no agency relationship between it and plaintiffs, and that plaintiffs failed to allege that High Ten owed them a duty. High Ten further argued that the statute of frauds (Civ. Code, § 1624) barred any oral or implied contract. The trial court sustained the demurrer, finding that plaintiffs failed to allege a duty based on the lack of a written agreement and insufficient allegations of an