Cornblith v. Valentine

THE COURT.

This is an action for specific performance of an agreement to exchange real property. It appears that on October 4, 1926, plaintiff was the owner of an equity

[245]

in certain improved real property in Hermosa Beach, and the defendants were the owners of an equity in certain improved real property elsewhere in Los Angeles County. On that date, the parties, by an agreement in writing, agreed to exchange their respective equities, each party to assume certain designated encumbrances. The amended complaint alleges full compliance with this agreement on the part of plaintiff, and alleges the failure and refusal of defendants to perform. In addition to asking for a decree of specific performance, plaintiff asks for $500 damages, alleged to have been caused by defendants’ delay in performance.

The answer first denies the execution of the contract and all of the other material allegations of the amended complaint, and in addition thereto, by way of affirmative defense, admitting the execution of the contract and the escrow, alleges the inadequacy of the consideration, and also alleges in proper form, that defendants were induced to enter into the agreement by reason of certain false and fraudulent representations of plaintiff. The answer further alleges that plaintiff was in wrongful possession of defendants’ property for a period of over five months, and that during that period collected the rentals thereof; that the reasonable rental value of the premises during the period of wrongful occupation was $300; that while plaintiff was in possession of the premises he injured the real property of defendants to the extent of $300. In the prayer of the answer, in addition to asking that plaintiff take nothing by his action, defendants ask for damages in the sum of $600.

On the issues thus joined, the cause was tried by the court sitting without a jury. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of defendants, not only denying to plaintiff the relief sought, but also granting defendants damages in the sum of $250. Among other things, the trial court found that the equity of plaintiff was not equal in value to that of defendants, and that therefore the consideration was inadequate, and that the contract was not just, fair or equitable to defendants. The court also found that defendants had been induced to enter the agreement by reason of false and fraudulent representations made by plaintiff. These representations which the court found were false and fraudulent and upon which defendants relied, were that the equity