Edwards v. Corbalis CA2/2

Filed 12/30/15 Edwards v. Corbalis CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

IRV EDWARDS et al., B261002

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YC069741) v.

FRED F. CORBALIS III et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Stuart M. Rice, Judge. Affirmed.

Scapa Law Group, Robert B. Scapa, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Gaglione, Dolan & Kaplan, Robert T. Dolan and Martina A. Silas, for Defendants and Respondents.

******

When homeowners are informed that the restrictive covenants they hired a lawyer to prepare and record are invalid, is their lawsuit against that attorney and his law firm for malpractice timely if it is filed more than one year after the foreclosure sale that invalidated the restrictive covenants and more than one year after they are told the covenants may be invalid? The trial court ruled that the homeowner’s lawsuit was untimely, and dismissed their complaint. We independently conclude that dismissal is required, and consequently affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts The following facts are drawn from the allegations of the operative first amended complaint (FAC). Plaintiffs Irv and Debby Edwards (collectively, plaintiffs) own a home in Manhattan Beach, California, with a “scenic shoreline and ocean view.” To preserve that view, they bought the property directly across the street (neighboring property) in 2006. That same year, plaintiffs hired defendant Fred F. Corbalis III and his law firm, defendant Spierer, Woodward, Corbalis & Goldberg (collectively, defendants) to prepare restrictive covenants that would bind all future owners of the neighboring property to certain height and development restrictions. Defendants eventually recorded three such covenants, in May 2008, July 2008, and August 2008. In the meantime, plaintiffs had formed a limited partnership with a neighbor and, in February 2008, had transferred ownership of the neighboring property to that partnership. By early 2012, the limited partnership had fallen behind in its mortgage payments; the lender sold the property to the Serrano family trust at a nonjudicial foreclosure on March 1, 2012. In early March 2013, plaintiffs informed the new owners that the landscaping they planted would eventually violate the restrictive covenants. The new owners consulted a lawyer, and prior to March 19, 2013, informed plaintiffs that, in their view, the foreclosure sale had “wiped out” all of the restrictive covenants because the covenants had been filed after the February 2008 deed of trust that they succeeded at the