Sabbagh v. Davood CA2/8

Filed 3/30/16 Sabbagh v. Davood CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ISKANDER SABBAGH et al., B261104

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC099632) v.

SHAHROKH DAVOOD,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Huey P. Cotton, Jr. Affirmed.

Steven W. O’Reilly for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Shafron & Kammer, Shelly J. Shafron and Kevin David Kammer for Defendant and Respondent.

**********

Plaintiffs Iskander and Sozan Sabbagh appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Shahrokh Davood, who bought their home in a short sale to avoid foreclosure. We affirm. BACKGROUND 1. The Complaint The operative pleading is the verified first amended complaint. It alleges causes of action against defendant for breach of contract, fraud, rescission and specific performance. Each cause of action rests on the following general allegations: In early 2012, plaintiffs were in default on their mortgage payments to Bank of America. Plaintiffs retained a broker to conduct a short sale on their behalf. Plaintiffs made an oral agreement with defendant to sell their home in September 2012. In early October 2012, plaintiffs met with the broker and defendant at their home to finalize their agreement. The parties orally agreed that plaintiffs would sell their home to defendant for $196,800; they had 90 days to a year in which to buy it back at the same price; they could stay in their home if they paid defendant $1,500 a month in rent; and defendant would receive a $20,000 commission when the property was reconveyed to plaintiffs. The broker assured plaintiffs these terms would be part of the final purchase agreement. Plaintiffs signed and notarized the purchase agreement but did not receive a copy. Escrow closed October 11, 2012. On Thanksgiving Day of 2012, the broker told plaintiffs they would have to pay defendant $350,000 to repurchase their home, and that defendant would pay them $20,000 to move out. Plaintiffs refused to move, and were told eviction proceedings were underway. Plaintiffs allege defendant breached their oral agreement, and defrauded them, because the written purchase agreement had different terms than their oral agreement. They also allege they may rescind the oral agreement and, in the alternative, seek specific performance of the oral agreement. 2. The Court Grants Summary Judgment The hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment was held on August 28,