Legal Opinion
Cullen v. Corwin
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 7, 2012No. C067861PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BUTZ, J.
Plaintiffs Joe and Marieanne Cullen stated alternate counts1 that alleged defendants Paul and Geraldine Corwin acted either negligently or fraudulently in failing to disclose the defective condition of the garage roof when the Corwins sold a vacation home to the Cullens.2
The Corwins moved for summary judgment on the ground that the statute of limitations had expired. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in their favor. It subsequently granted their motion to recover $16,500 in legal fees as costs, pursuant to a provision in the standard form purchase…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Santisas v. GoodinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Honey Baked Hams, Inc. v. DickensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Frei v. DaveyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Rio Linda Unified School Dist. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- Lange v. SchillingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Fuller v. First Franklin Financial Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2013
- 511 S. Park View, Inc. v. TsantisAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 2015
- 511 S. Park View, Inc. v. TsantisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Evleshin v. MeyerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025
- Fuller v. First FranklinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013