Sihota v. Sihota CA5
Filed 5/10/16 Sihota v. Sihota CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PAUL SIHOTA et al., F070363 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 11CECG01919) v.
SARDUL SINGH SIHOTA et al., OPINION Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kristi Culver Kapetan, Judge. Tritt & Tritt and James F. Tritt for Plaintiffs and Appellants. The Law Office of G. Bryan Pinion and G. Bryan Pinion for Defendants and Respondents. -ooOoo- Appellants, Paul Sihota and Rajneet Sihota, challenge the judgment entered in favor of respondents, Sardul Singh Sihota and Jitendra Kaur Sihota, on Paul and
Rajneet’s breach of oral contract claim.1 According to Paul, his father, Sardul, and his stepmother, Jitendra, promised to transfer a ranch to Paul and his wife, Rajneet, if Paul performed as requested by Sardul. Sardul denied ever making any such promise. Following a bench trial, the court held that the alleged promise was unenforceable. The court questioned whether any contract was formed at any time. The court further concluded that, in any event, the statute of frauds barred enforcement of any alleged oral contract. The trial court’s conclusions are supported by the record and the law. Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed. BACKGROUND Sardul owned several ranches on which he primarily grew raisin grapes. In 1994, Sardul and Jitendra purchased a ranch, referred to as the Temperance Ranch or “Frank’s [R]anch.” They put Paul’s name, along with theirs, on the deed to that ranch. Sardul testified he decided to put Paul’s name on the deed “[j]ust like parents would do for their children” and to “build up his credit.” Paul never made any financial contribution to the Temperance Ranch. At trial, Paul testified that when he was in high school and college, Sardul told Paul that if he stayed in school, was a good son, continued to work on the ranches, and married an Indian girl, i.e., a Sikh girl, Sardul and Jitendra would take care of him financially. While in school, Paul worked on the family ranches. Paul was never paid, but received spending money and his parents paid for his education. Paul graduated from college in 1994. In 1996, Sardul and Jitendra were looking for a wife for Paul. The family traveled to India for this purpose. While in India they conducted numerous interviews of the
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)