Supreme Court of California

In a dispute between experienced real estate investors regarding the sale of apartment buildings, a decision reversing a trial court's grant of summary judgment for defendants is reversed where, although the court of appeals properly considered the parties' extrinsic evidence, it erroneously deemed it legally sufficient under the statute of frauds to establish the price sought by plaintiffs. The court expressly disapproves statements in California cases barring consideration of extrinsic evidence to determine the sufficiency of a memorandum under the statute of frauds. If a memorandum includes the essential terms of the parties' agreement, but the meaning of those terms is unclear, the memorandum is sufficient under the statute of frauds if: 1) extrinsic evidence clarifies the terms with reasonable certainty; and 2) the evidence as a whole demonstrates that the parties intended to be bound.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/01/2007
• Published 03/01/2007

Judges

• CORRIGAN, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Carl L. Grumer, Craig S. Rutenberg, Los Angeles, Jeffrey A. Backhus;  Barak Lurie, Santa Monica;  Law Offices of Dennis C. Tulsiak and Dennis C. Tulsiak, Los Angeles, for Plaintiffs and Appellants., June Babiracki Barlow and Neil Kalin, Los Angeles, for California Association of Realtors as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Horvitz & Levy, Lisa Perrochet, Jeremy B. Rosen, Encino;  Buchalter, Nemer, Fields & Younger, G. Forsythe Bogeaus, Los Angeles, and Raquel Vallejo, for Defendants and Respondents., Trevor A. Grimm and Paul Gough, Los Angeles, for Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents., Arthur Mazirow, Los Angeles, for Richard A. Lord as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.