Legal Opinion
Padgett v. Phariss
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 14, 1997No. D022333PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
Construction defect litigation seems as common as crabgrass in planned unit developments in California. Is it so common that a real estate agent participating in a buy-sell transaction for a residence located within a planned unit development has a duty; without more, based on statute or common law, to inquire of the subject homeowners association whether (1) there are construction defects at the common areas of the property or (2) there is pending or proposed litigation concerning those defects? (Civ. Code, § 2079 et seq.) Here, the trial court said no, granting…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Lingsch v. SavageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Unzueta v. Ocean View School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Easton v. StrassburgerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- People Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. MullerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
- Wilson v. Century 21 Great Western RealtyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Graham v. Bank of America, N.A.California Court of Appeal · 2014
- Exxess Electronixx v. Heger Realty Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1998
- Assilzadeh v. California Federal BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Smith v. Allstate InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2001
- Neu-Visions Sports, Inc. v. SorenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.