Calemine v. Samuelson
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DOI TODD, J.
Plaintiffs and appellants Larry and Camille Calemine appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant and respondent Walter Samuelson (Samuelson). The trial court ruled that Samuelson, the seller of a condominium purchased by appellants, met his burden to show the absence of a triable issue of fact concerning his disclosure of facts relating to water intrusion.
We reverse. While the evidence established that Samuelson disclosed the existence of previous water intrusion, it further established that he did not disclose the existence of two lawsuits relating to that…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Union Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Lingsch v. SavageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Assilzadeh v. California Federal BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Lyons v. Security Pacific National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Twenty-Nine Palms Enterprises Corp. v. BardosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- RSB Vineyards, LLC v. Orsi, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Snatchko v. Westfield llCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- A.B. v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025
- A.B. v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.