Ramey v. Greene

WARNE, J. pro tem.* This is an action to rescind a contract for the purchase of a certain motel and trailer park because of alleged fraudulent representations and concealment of material facts, failure of consideration and mistake. The [156]trial court found for the defendant seller, and the plaintiffs have appealed.

It appears from the record that the property in question, known as the Traveler’s Rest Motel and situated on the outskirts of Willows, California, was purchased by defendant at a foreclosure sale about 11 weeks before the execution of the contract of sale to the plaintiffs. Following the purchase by the defendant of said property, she opened same as a trailer park and motel without a state permit as required by section 18200 of the Health and Safety Code. However, on or about November 21, 1956, she applied for a permit, and in response to her application the Division of Housing, under date of December 5, 1956, mailed her a compliance order in the form of the following letter:

“An inspection by our representative on November 29, 1956, discloses that you are operating your motel and trailer park without a State permit, in violation of the Auto Court, Resort and Motel Act and the State Trailer Park Act.

“Continued operation is detrimental to the welfare of the occupants and constitutes a nuisance as defined in Section 18008 of the Trailer Park Act and Section 18511 of the Motel Act.

“You are hereby directed to vacate the premises forthwith, including the motel units, and remove all trailers therefrom.

“Do not permit further occupancy until this property is brought into compliance with the Health and Safety Code.

“We are returning herewith your U.S. Postal Money Order . . . in the amount of $10.00.” '

Immediately after receipt of this letter defendant was contacted in person by Mr. Davis of the Division of Housing and told by him that he had not ordered the letter to be sent, and that he thought perhaps Mr. O’Brien had misunderstood his report. He then assured her that if she would commence making the required improvements to place the premises in compliance with the state law, she could continue to operate in the absence of a permit. He informed her that the sewage and electrical facilities were the most immediate hazards and would have to be improved immediately. He did not tell her of all the things he felt needed to be done to the property, nor is there any evidence that he furnished defendant a copy of his report concerning the condition of the premises. Mr. Davis’s authority to permit the premises to be operated is not challenged. Defendant did not inform appellants that she had been refused a permit. However, defendant testified