11/10/2022 0 Comments Crow of judgment![]() At the same time, Crow made an offer of $2.75 million. Rice nonetheless, in November 1990, obtained an offer to purchase the Property for $2.8 million. After the listing expired, Crow refused to extend it. During the listing period, Crow indicated his intention to purchase the Property, although he did not indicate the price he was willing to pay, and sought to have Rice curtail his marketing efforts. Rice undertook to market the property, even though construction was not completed until after the listing agreement expired on September 30, 1990. In February of 1990, CRP entered an exclusive seven-month listing agreement with a real estate brokerage company with whom Rice was affiliated to sell the Property for $3,295,000. During construction, Crow advanced money to CRP for the project in a magnitude unknown to Rice, which sum purportedly totaled over $1.5 million, on which Crow claimed 10 percent interest. Although the construction was scheduled to be completed within one year at a cost of $750,000, it took over two years. The Property was acquired by CRP in May of 1988. The three were directors of CRP along with Rickard, Crow's accountant, and Cox, Crow's long-standing friend and business associate, both selected by Crow. Crow insisted that Pardee, with whom he had a long-standing relationship, act as the general contractor. Crow was to oversee the financial aspects of the project, based upon his self-proclaimed experience as a developer. Rice was the vice-president of CRP and primarily responsible for assisting with the design and marketing of a residence to be constructed on the Property. (CRP) for the purpose of developing property located at 2539 Benedict Canyon Drive, Los Angeles, California (Property). On September 21, 1987, Crow, Rice and Pardee formed Crow, Rice, Pardee, Inc. Rice, in his declaration filed in opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, provides the following description of the transaction which gave rise to the underlying action. The Transaction Which Gave Rise to the Underlying Action We conclude that Arciniega is flawed in its reasoning and that the settlement and dismissal of the legal malpractice action does not bar Rice's action against Defendants. #CROW OF JUDGMENT TRIAL#4th 213 (Arciniega), Defendants argued, and the trial court agreed, that Rice's settlement and dismissal with prejudice of a legal malpractice action against his former attorneys arising from their representation of him earlier in these proceedings constituted a retraxit barring Rice's suit against Defendants. ![]() Plaintiff Harvey Rice (Rice) appeals from a summary judgment granted against him and in favor of Robert Trammell Crow (Crow), Neal Pardee (Pardee), Robert Rickard (Rickard) and Ronald Cox (Cox) (collectively Defendants). Birke for Defendant and Respondent Neal Pardee. Burgee for Plaintiff and Appellant.ĭimascio
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |