1. Los Angeles labor law attorney
Appellantsellersoughtreviewof the decisionof the SuperiorCourtof Orange County(California),which
enteredjudgmentforrespondentbuyerinthe seller'sactiontocompel paymentpursuanttoa sales
agreementforan oil derrickafterthe buyerdiscoveredhe hadonlypurchasedthe interestof the
judgmentdebtorsinthe property,notthe propertyitself.
The sellerpurchasedthe interestof the judgmentdebtorsatan executionsale ontwooil derricks.He
thenfounda buyerforthe property.The sellerstatedthathe ownedthe propertyandthere wasno
claimagainstthe propertyexceptof citytaxes.Anassignmentof the sheriff'scertificate of sale was
placedonthe back thereof,executedanddeliveredtothe buyer,whointurngave the selleracheckfor
the purchase price.The buyerbeganto dismantle the derrick.Otherpartiescame forwardandsaidthey
ownedthe derrick.The buyerwenttothe sheriff'soffice andlearnedthatthe onlyinteresthe received
inthe propertywasthe interestof the judgmentdebtors.The buyerimmediatelyreturnedthe
certificate of sale andrequestedthe returnof hischeck.The sellerfiledanactionto compel the buyerto
pay the purchase price.The trial court enteredjudgmentforthe buyer.Onappeal,the courtaffirmed
and heldthatthe sellerwaslegallyboundtodisclose the nature of the title of the judgmentdebtors,or
at leastto state to the buyerhislack of knowledge concerningthe same.Havingfailedsotodo,the
seller'sstatementthatthe title wasgoodwasin fact a fraud.
The court withcounsel from Los Angeleslaborlaw attorney affirmedjudgmentforthe buyerinthe
seller'sactiontocompel paymentof the purchase price underasalesagreementinwhichthe seller
misrepresentedhistitle tothe propertyandcommittedfraud.
Appellantassigneesoughtreviewof anorderof the SuperiorCourtof Los AngelesCounty(California),
whichenteredajudgmentinhisfavorinhisactionfor breachof contract againstrespondentslessorand
lessee butdeniedhimrecoveryfromthe lessorbasedonprofitsfromthe original lease betweenthe
lessorandlessee.
The lessee leasedrealtyfromthe lessor.The lesseenegotiatedasublease atanincreasedprice and
agreedto share equallythe "profitsreceivedbythe lessee"withthe lessor.Alongwithapromissory
note,the lessee assigneditsshare of anyprofitsresultingfromthe subleasetothe assignee,towhom
the lessee wasindebted.The subleasewasterminatedbyagreementof the lesseeandthe lessor
because the lessee wasexperiencingfinancialdifficulty.Inthe assignee'sactiontorecoverdamages
fromthe lessee andthe lessorforbreachof contract,the trial court enteredajudgmentforthe assignee
but heldthathe couldnot recoverfromthe lessoronthe original lease.Onappeal,the courtaffirmed
the judgmentof the trial court, holdingthatthe assignmentwaslimited toprofitsfromthe sublease and
didnot applyto the original lease.Notingthatthe subleasewascancelledingoodfaithbecause of the
lessee'sfinancial troubles,the courtheldthatthe assignee stoodinthe shoesof the lessee andhadno
greaterrightsagainstthe lessorthandidthe lessee.The courtremandedtothe trial court for a
determinationof the assignee'srightsagainstthe lessor'swife.
2. The court affirmedthe judgmentof the trial courtdenyingthe assigneerecoveryfromthe lessorfor
profitsfromthe original lease.The courtremandedtothe trial courtfor a determinationof the
assignee'srightsagainstthe lessor'swife.
