Ruiz v. Brown CA2/1

Filed 1/29/16 Ruiz v. Brown CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

ARTHUR RUIZ, B260108

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC514824) v.

GAVESTON BROWN, as Successor Trustee, etc., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Barbara M. Scheper, Judge. Affirmed. Sanford M. Ehrmann and Heleni E. Suydam for Plaintiff and Appellant. Elkin Gamboa & Ashkinadze, Regina Ashkinadze and Jessica Gamboa for Defendants and Respondents. ——————————

Arthur Ruiz appeals from a judgment of dismissal following the trial court’s sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend to his second amended complaint. We affirm. The second amended complaint, filed January 31, 2014, alleged causes of action for breach of contract and specific performance and named as defendants Franklin W. Sumner as Deceased Trustee to the Franklin W. Sumner Living Trust (Trust), the Trust, and Gaveston Brown. Ruiz alleged that “since approximately 1986,” he had occupied the premises at 5342 Fountain Avenue in Los Angeles, which was owned by Franklin W. Sumner as Trustee of the Franklin W. Sumner Living Trust. Sumner died in April 2013 and Brown was the successor trustee. “Since approximately 1990,” Sumner agreed to sell the property to Ruiz, as reflected in a handwritten letter to Ruiz, purportedly from Sumner, dated January 7, 2008, about 18 years later. The letter, attached as exhibit A, stated: “Arthur, [¶] the following history of our agreement together broken down as follows. [¶] In 2006 my price for the property was $270,000.00. Prices of home during that period was $505,000.00. So I give you a break. 20 percent down of my $270,000.00 should be $54,000.00. You have paid in a total of $25,350.00 for 2006 & 2007 which I am willing to accept as your down payment. [¶] According to your article you sent me houses in Los Angeles fell 14 percent. So 14 percent of my $270,000.00 leaves $232,000.00. Subtracting your down payment of $25,350.00 still leaves a balance of $206,000.00 but I am willing to reduce my price again to $200,000.00 another discount of $6,000.00. $200,000.00 is the best I can do as my present selling price. [¶] If you are unable to get a loan then I would be willing to carry the loan based on a 30 year loan at 5 percent interest per month. Your monthly payment would be $1,073.66 you would have to pay 1/2 of the escrow chgs. There would be no need to be carry Title Insurance as the property is clear. Tell escrow this up front otherwise they will add a chg. for this. If you use a loan co., they will want this. [¶] Your best bet for an escrow would be your bank. Go into your bank up front and give them all the facts. $200,000.00 loan with no money down. 30 year loan at 5 per cent per month & ask them to give you the total estimated chgs. needed to open escrow. This is