Perez v. Blay CA4/1

Filed 11/18/20 Perez v. Blay CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

MAX PEREZ, D075751 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2017-00023570- CU-FR-NC) RICHARD J. BLAY et al., Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jacqueline M. Stern, Judge. Affirmed. Griffin Law Firm and David Ryan Griffin for Plaintiff and Appellant. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, Matthew Gregory Kleiner and Andrea K. Scripps for Defendants and Respondents.

Appellant Max Perez bought a parcel of land and then sought to rescind the purchase. He challenges the trial court’s denial of his request and, in particular, its finding that the lot was not part of a common interest development. Finding no error based on the incomplete record before us, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2015, Perez bought a parcel of land in Bonsall from Richard and Ann

Whalen Blay.1 It was one of eight lots they inherited from Richard’s mother. The Blays never lived on the land but knew all parcels were subject to various covenants and restrictions (CC&R’s) which were referenced in the property listing. Perez was apparently eager to close the sale. He submitted an offer, accepted the Blay’s counteroffer, and completed the purchase in less than a month. At some point Perez seemingly discovered that the CC&R’s would inhibit his construction plans on the lot. He filed suit against the Blays and other codefendants involved in the sale (parties who were later dismissed), seeking rescission based on fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. Perez alleged that the Blays misrepresented that there was no owner’s association and that the CC&R’s were invalid, inducing him to purchase the lot in reliance on these false statements. For his breach of contract claim, Perez said the Blays did not disclose certain documents they were contractually mandated to provide. The case proceeded to a bench trial, where the court found in favor of the Blays and specifically stated that Perez failed to carry his burden, offering “no evidence against these defendants of fraudulent acts or misrepresentations” and “no evidence that they failed to provide any required documentation to plaintiff.” The trial was not reported.