1

Filed 1/15/15 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

DONNA STOFER,
Plaintiff and Appellant, A139385

v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. SHAPELL INDU STRIES, INC., MSC10

- 00598)
Defendant and Respondent. _____________________________________/

P laintiff Donna Stof

er (plaintiff) purchased a home from Dr. Marcus F. Laux. Almost two years later, s he sued the homebuilder, Shapell Industries, Inc. (Shap ell), for strict liability, negligence, and fraudulent concealment

. Plaintiff claimed Shapell built
the home on unstable and uncompacted “fill” soil a nd with an inadequate foundation, causing “ substantial differential movement ” and numerous defects such a s cracked floors,
wal l s, and ceilings

. Shapell moved for summary judgment
, contendin g it did not conceal any material
information and plaintiff did not have standing to sue because her claims accrued while
Dr. Laux owned the home

. 1 The trial court gran ted the motion as to plaintiff’s fraudulent

1 In the construction defect context, what the trial court and the parties refer to as “‘standing’” is “more properly phrased as when a cause of action for design or construction defects accrues and who then owns it [ ] or . . . who doesn’t own it.” ( Krusi v. S.J. Amoroso Construction Co. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 995 , 999 ( Krusi ) , italics omitted.) We refer to the issue as one of accrual

— i.e., whether plaintiff owns the causes of action against Shapell.2

concealment claim

. It denied the motion as to plaintiff’s other claims , concluding there was a triable issue of material fact regarding whether plaintiff “own[ed]

. . . any claims regarding defects in the design and construction of the home [

. ] ” The court held a bench
trial on the accrual issue, and entered judgment for Shapell, concluding plaintiff had “ no standing to sue” because her claims accrued when Dr. Laux owned the home and he did

not assign the claims t o plaintiff

. Plaintiff appeals. She contends the order granting summary adjudication on her
fraudulent concealment claim must be reversed. We agree. Construing the facts in a light most favorable to plaintiff and resolving evidentiary doubts in her f avor, we conclude there is a triable issue of material fact regarding whether Shapell fraudulently concealed information about the property’s soil condition s

. Accordingly, w e reverse the grant of summary adjudication on plaintiff’s fraudulent concealment claim.
Plaintiff also contends t he judgment must be reversed because she was entitled to have a jury determine the dispute d factual issues of “when and t o whom the causes of action accrued.” We agree. A trial court may decide whether a cause of action for
construction defect accrues to the plaintiff where the facts underlying that determination are undisputed. ( See Krusi, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1006 .) But w here

— as here

— the material facts regarding accrual turn on disputed facts or require cr edibility
determinations
, the jury must make these factual findings “before the t ri al court decides whether the facts, as determined by the jury” establish ownership of the causes of action

as a n issue of law. ( People v. Superior Court ( Plascencia ) (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 409,
424 ( Plascencia )

. ) Accordingly, we reverse the judgment for Shapell.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
S hapell built a home on Velvet L eaf Circle in a residential subdivision in San
Ramon for Timothy Alan Wright
, then Shapell’s Ass istant General Superintendent and
Assistant Vice President of Construction. Wright oversaw the construction of the home and he and his wife purchased it from Shapell in December 2002

. The transaction was
informal: Shapell transferred title to the propert y without “formal disclosures that would
be transmitted in a more conventional transaction.” (See Civ

. Code, § 1102 et seq.)3

Wright and his wife sold the home to Dr

. Laux in 2004. In the Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement prepared as part of the s ale to Dr. Laux, Wright stated he was unaware of the presence of fill soil on the property. When he owned the home, Dr.
Laux submitted multiple warranty repair requests to Shapell for problems ranging from
cracked sidewalks and exterior stucco to issues w ith the home’s windows and doors

. Dr. Laux sold the home to plaintiff in 2008. He gave plaintiff a $2,000 credit against the purchase price for minor repair items , not due to a perceived deficiency in the condition
of the soil or foundation. Dr. Laux wr ote a letter to plaintiff at the time of sale express ing
his love for the home and stating “it has served us more than well. This house has made living here a rewarding joy

. ” In 2010, p laintiff sued Shapell for strict liability, neglige nce, and fraudule nt concealment, alleging “ defective soil conditions ” heaved the home’s foundation and damaged “all of the structures on the lot [

. ] ” T he operative complaint alleged the soil conditions were defective in part because the property contained “25 to 30 feet of highly differential fill; the soil at the Property has unusually high plasticity; the fill at the Property fails to meet minimum engineering compaction standards[.]” The operative complaint also alleged the home suffered from numerous defects, including cracked floors, walls and ceilings
, unlevel floors
, and problems with the pool and pool deck.
Plaintiff allege d she noticed these “dramatic changes” after she purchased the home

. The fraudulent concealment cause of action alleged Shapell hired ENGEO
Inc orporated (Engeo) as a soil engineer and that Engeo advised Shapell of the “highly differential, high plasticity fill soil conditions” on the property in 1995 and 1999 reports

. Plaintiff alleged S hapell concealed this information from its structural engin eer, Shaer

- K Engineering (Shaer

- K) and, as a result, Shaer

- K “did not take into account these soil conditions when designing the foundations” for the structures built on the property. Because Shapell intentionally concealed the soil conditions from Shaer

- K, all of the buildings on the property we re “built on fill without using a proper design methodology to provide the buildings the proper support [

. ] ” Plaintiff also alleged Shapell had a duty to4

disclose “highly differential fill soil conditions and the i nadequate foundation” to Wright
but concealed this information from him to induce him to buy the property. Shapell’s Motion for Summary Judgment /Adjudication and Plaintiff’s Opposition As relevant here, Shap ell moved for summary judgment/ adjudication o n the following grounds : A. Fraudulent Concealment
In its motion for summary adjudication on plaintiff ’s fraudulent concealment claim, Shapell argued : (1) there was no evidence it concealed or suppressed the Engeo reports from Shaer

- K or Wright ; and (2) t he s oil conditions were disclosed to plaintiff before she bought the home. Shapell supported its motion with following evidence :

 Shaer

- K’s sole owner and employee, Karen Serke
, contract ed with Wright in April 2002 to provide architectural engineering and design services for the
construction of the home. 2 T he contract required Wright to “provide surveying and/or geotechnical engineering services upon request . . . to support the structural design .”
Serke received unspecified Engeo “soils reports for the p roject and used them in preparation of [her] structural calculations for . . . Wright’s residence [

. ] ”

 Wright knew the property contained fill, had been graded
, and was not “in a
natural state” when construction began . He provided Serke with whatever inf ormation she requested , including the building plans and Engeo’s “soils sheet.”

 P laintiff signed a statewide buyer and seller a dvisory f orm before she purchased the home advising her “ ‘ real estate in California is subject to settling, slippage,
contracti on, expansion, subsidence . . . and other land movement. The Property may be constructed on fill or improperly compacted soil and may have inadequate drainage capability. Any of these matters can cause structural problems to improvements on the Property. ’ ” Plaintiff also signed a buyer’s inspection a dvisory from the California
Association of Realtors advising her to investigate the entire property, including “Soil

2 The contract lis ts Wright as the homeowner, but he signed the contract as a representative of Shapell, using the title of “ Asst. V.P.” because he did not own the property when he entered the contract.5

Stability: Existence of fill or compacted soil, expansive or contracting soil, susceptibili ty to slippage, settling or movement, and the adequacy of drainage. (Geotechnical engineers are best suited to determine such conditions, causes and remedies).”

 Before she bought the home, plaintiff received a professional real estate inspection r eport (prepared in 2004, when Wright sold the home to Dr. Laux) stating the
home was “located in an area where the soil condition is of an expansive nature. We believe that some building and site concrete m ovement will always occur as the soil s moisture content changes from season to season. The method of construction used when
this structure was built seems to have the inherent characteristic of slight structural
movement.”

 The final subdivision public r eport lodged with the California Department
of Real Est ate in 2001 s tating some lots in the subdivision “contain [ ed ] filled ground in excess of two feet. The information concerning filled ground and soil conditions is available at the City of San Ramon Building Department.” In opposition, plaintiff argued Shapell knew of the existence of fill on the property and failed to disclose the information to Shaer

- K or Wright

. She c ontended the
statements in the statewide b uyer and seller a dvisory, 2004 professional real estate
i nspection r eport , and final subdivis ion public report were “no substitute for proper disclosure of specific information known to Shapell” regarding the property. She offered the following evidence in opposition :

 Engeo’s September 1992 and September 1999 report s notifying Shapell of the prop erty’s soil condition. The September 1992 report s t ated a “ ‘ major area of concern regarding the project is the expansive nature of the native soil and bedrock. The clayey soil and claystone at the site display moderate to high Plasticity Indices which is

a n indication of moderate to extremely high potential for shrink

- swell behavior. ’ ” The September 1999 report stat ed “d ifferential fill subexcavation was not performed within these subdivisions. Differential fill conditions on [the property] will need to be addressed during foundation design review.” The September 1999 report referenced Engeo’s May 1999 report, which stated the property contained up to 24 meters of fill and also advised6

“differential fi ll conditions . . . will need to be addressed during foundation design
review.”

 Serke destroyed the file she maintained when she designed the home’s
foundation
, did not possess copy of “any soils reports” related to the property
, and could not identify which Engeo soil reports she re ceived regarding the p roperty. Serke averred “Wright did not inform [her] that differential fill was present” on the property and stated
she was “unaware that differential fill was present at [the property] ” when she designed the home’s foundation

.

 Wright knew the property h ad been “cut” and “graded” but not to “what
extent.” Wright was aware t he property “wasn’t in a natural state. . . . whether it was cut down to get t here or it was brought back up” but he “ just never paid attention.” He knew
there was fill in the lots in the subdivision, but not t he depth of the fill because another Shapell department “dealt with ” that issue.
B. Shapell’s Accrual Defense Shapell also argued it was entitled to summary judgment because Dr. Laux

— not plaintiff

— was “ the true owner of a ny cause of action ” against Shapell and had not assign ed his claims to plaintiff. As Shapell explained, plaintiff alleged “ that within the first two months of her ownership she observed problems and began investigating the cause of the related damages. [ Dr. ] Laux owned the

. . . Property for well over three years, saw many of the same if not identical defects as observed by Plaintiff, took multiple corrective measures to repair or patch the visible damage, yet he never once took steps to investigate or at tempt to identify what was the [sic] causing the damage. . . . [Dr.]
Laux was therefore on ‘inquiry notice’ as to what was causing the damage to the property, . . . Once on ‘inquiry notice’ . . . the action lies with that homeowner and in this
case it was [Dr.] Laux.” In support of the motion, Shapell relied on warranty requests submitted by Dr. Laux which

— according to Shapell

— “ placed [Dr.] Laux on ‘inquiry’
notice” and “mirrored ” the defects about which plaintiff complained

. In opposition, plaintiff argued her claims against Shapell accrued when she owned the property and the “question of when a claim has accrued is almost always one of fact

. ”7

Plaintiff contended Dr. Laux’s “minor warranty requests” did not concern soil movement
and he “did not have reason to suspect the cause of his damage was the presence of deep differential fill, highly ex pansive soils, lack of drainage or inadequate foundation design. Thus, Dr. Laux was not on inquiry notice and the cause of action did not accrue during
his own ership.” According to plaintiff, “dramatic changes and damages” occurred on the property after she purchased it. When she investigated
, she learned the damage was caused by “soils movement and inadequate foundation design. Thus, the cause[s] of
action a gainst Shapell accrued during [her] ownership and she ha [d] standing” to sue.
Plaintiff offered the following evidence in opposition:

 Her declaration describing the “significant changes [that] occurred in the condition of the property” after she moved in to the home. Before plaintiff purchased the home, she “ caused a home inspection, roof inspection, chimney inspection and pool inspection to be performed at the Property. [She] also personally observed the visible conditions of the Property. Other than t wo small hairline cracks, [she] did not observe any problems or defects in the property prior to [her] purchase.” After she moved into the house: (1) a hairline crack in the pool decking became a fracture
, other cracks
surfaced , and the coping at the pool buckled and separated ; (2) standing water appeared on the property and began to roll toward the house; (3) cracks appeared in exterior tiles and in drywall; (4) window seals broke and windows separated from the ir frames; (5) a
hairline crack in the stucco “substantially increased” and additional cracks appeared ; (6)
doors stopped closing and locking and a sliding glass door cracked and started “ to seize[;]” and (7) an iron fence separated. “ T hese conditions were not present” when plaintiff purchased the h ome.

 Dr. Laux did not believe there was a problem with the foundation or soil conditions when he purchased the home from Wright and his wife

. He did not know there was up to 20 feet of fill soil under the foundation of the house. While Dr. Laux
owned t he home, he submitted warranty requests for “punch list” or “minor” problems with the home “‘that were not perfect, less than perfect ’” but he never thought there was an underlying soil or foundation condition causing the problems

. Dr. Laux did not think8

he needed to hire experts to investigate the problems on the property

. He gave plaintiff a $2,000 credit against the sale of the home for minor repairs, not because of a perceived deficiency in the condition of the soil or foundation. Dr. Laux was sincer e when he wrote plaintiff a letter expressing his love for the home.
C. The Court’s Order Following a hearing
, the court granted Shapell’s motion for summary adjudication

on plaintiff’s fraudulent concealment claim, concluding plaintiff “ failed to prese nt evidence of Shapell’s concealment of information sufficient to show a triable issue of
material fact [

. ] ” The court denied the motion as to plaintiff’s strict liability and negligence causes
of action , concluding there was a triable issue of material f act regarding whether plaintiff “own[ed] any claims regarding defects in the design and construction of the home.” As the court explained, “ Shapell asserts, there is no

. . . triable issue of material fact as to whether accrual occurred after [plaintiff] bought the home: it was possibly during the time of Wright ’ s ownership but certainly no later than when Dr. Laux owned the home.

. .

. [¶] Shapell notes that the inspection report prepared for Dr. Laux before he purchased the home noted cracking in walkwa ys, patios and exterior walls, as well as stating that
due to the nature of the soil some c oncrete movement would occur.

. . . Throughout the time he owned the home, Dr. Laux sought warranty repairs to address multiple problems with door adjustments, inte rior and exterior cracking of walls, cracked tiles and o ther
issues.

. . . Shapell argues that the problems known to Dr. Laux were similar to, and as significant as, those complained of by [plaintiff] , and were enough to give Dr. Laux
notice that he shoul d look further into the cause of the damages. ” The court noted plaintiff presented “e vidence to dispute Shapell ’ s characterization
of the problems noted in the inspection report prepared for Dr. Laux and those problems for which he sought repairs as ‘ mir roring ’ the defects she alleges. She notes, for example, that the inspection report prepared for Dr. Laux called the cracks in the walkways and patios, and in walls ‘ acceptable. ’

. . . By contrast, although when she moved in there was only minor cracking in exterior flatwork, stucco and interior drywall,9

[plaintiff] alleges and presents evidence of far more significant cracking after her purchase of the home. As to other defects as well, [plaintiff] similarly either points to the evidence relied upon by S hapell or presents other evidence to dispute Shapell ’ s characterization of the types of problems experienced by Dr. Laux as significant enough so that he should have investigated into the cause. ” The court determined the evidence “pointed to by [plaintiff

]

— including some of the evidence submitted by Shapell in support of its motion

— [was] enough to show the existence of a triable issue of material
fact” regarding when plaintiff’s claims accrued and whether plaintiff owned the strict liability and neglig ence claims

. Bench Trial and Judgment for Shapell Over plaintiff’s objectio n, the court granted Shapell ’s mo tion to bifurcate its
accrual and statute of limitations defenses. Shapell then requested a bench trial on accrual, claiming it was “ a legal iss ue” for the court

— not the jury

— to determine. As Shapell explained , the “ issue of the party which owned the property at the time the work was performed or when the damage occurred and whether any rights were transferred or assigned

. . . are questions of law for the court to determine.” Shapell also argued a bench trial on the threshold and dispositive issue of accrual would promote judicial

economy. In opposition, plaintiff claimed s he was entitled to a jury trial because “[t]he question of when a claim accrued is one of fact” and “[t]here is substantial and significant evidence for the jury to determine the cause of action against Shapell accrued during [her] ownership [

. ] ” Plaintiff claimed a jury should determine whether she owned the
causes of a ction against Shapell b ecause the parties disputed the “predicate facts underlying that determination

. ” According to plaintiff, the “ determination of standing depends upon a weighing of the evidence of whether or not there was appreciable economic injury to the prior owner that would have triggered the accrual of a cause of
action

. . . or at least accrual of the inquiry period for a cause of action and, therefore, giving rise to the question of standing.”10

After reviewing the parties’ extensive briefing and holding several hearings, t he

court decided to conduct a bench trial on whether p laintiff ha d “ standing to sue . . . Shapell for defective construction, i.e. whether or not the cause of action accrued during the time the property was owned by Dr. Marcu s Laux.” Following a nine

- day bench trial,
the court entered judgment for Shapell. T he court concluded the claims asserted in plaintiff’s lawsuit “accrued to Dr. Laux” because it was “undisputed that physical manifestation of problems occurred and existe d during ownership of the p ro perty by Dr. Laux (between 2004 and 2008).” In addition, the court determined the “[d]amages to the property complained of by Plaintiff were similar and some identical to (but not fundamentally different from) those complained of by Dr. Laux.” The court concluded plaintiff had “no standing to sue” because the “items of damage” claimed by plaintiff “represent damages which belonged to Dr. Laux and he elected not to pursue them.”
DISCUSSION Plaintiff challenges the court’s gra nt of summary adjudication on her fraudulent
concealment claim and its resolution of the accrual issue without a jury trial

. I. The Court Erred by Granting Summary Adjudication on Plaintiff’s Fraudulent Concealment Claim

“ Concealment is a species of fr aud or deceit. [Citations.] ‘ [T]he elements of an action for fraud and deceit based on concealment are: (1) the defendant must have concealed or suppressed a material fact, (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the plainti ff, (3) the defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff must have been
unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have sustained damage. ’ [Citations.]” ( Blickman Turkus, LP v. M F Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 858, 868.)

“‘“‘ A trial court properly grants a mot ion for summary judgment only if no issues of triable fact appear and the moving party is entitled t o judgment as a matter of law.11

[Citation.] The moving party bears the burden of showing the court that the plaintiff “ has not established, and cannot reas onably expect to establish, ”’ the elements of his or her
cause of action. [Citation.]” [Citation.] We review the trial court’ s decision de novo, liberally construing the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolving doubts con cerning the evidence in favor of that party.’ [Citation.]” ( Ennabe v.
Manosa (2014) 58 Cal.4th 697, 705 ( Ennabe ) ; see also Crown Imports, LLC v. Superior
Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1402.)
P l ai ntiff’s fraudulent concealment claim alleged Shapell failed to disclose
information about the property’s soil conditions to Shaer

- K , who designed the home’s foundation. Plaintiff also alleged Shapell concealed information about the soil conditions to the original buyer, Wright

. In the trial court and on ap peal, the part ies focus on the
first element: whether Shapell concealed or suppressed a material fact

. P laintiff contends the court erred by granting summary adjudication on her fraudulent concealment claim
because Shapell offered “no evidence conclusivel y showing that Shapell, or Wright acting for Shapell” provided Serke or Shaer

- K wi th Engeo’s 1992 or 1999 reports and because Shapell offere d “no evidence conclusively showing that Wright was made aware
of the soil concerns and recommendations identified i n Engeo’s September 3, 1992 , report [

. ] ” Shapell argues it was entitled to summary adjudication on plaintiff’s fraudulent
concealment claim because it made a “ prima facie showing that nothing had been
concealed

. ” In support of its motion, Shapell offered evidence that : (1) Wright knew the property contained fill, had been graded, and was not “in a natural state” when construction on the home began ; (2) Wright provided Serke with whatever information she requested when she designed the home’s foundation, i ncluding an Engeo “soils
sheet [;] ” (3) Serke received unspecified Engeo “soils reports” for the project and used them to design the home’s foundation ; (4) before plaintiff purchased the home, she
received disclosure forms advising her the property “may be constructed on fill or improperly compacted soil[,]” which “can cause structural problems[;]” and (5) before she purchased the home, plaintiff also received a 2004 professional real estate inspection12

r eport stat ing the home was “located in an area where th e soil condition is of an expansive nature . . . some building and site concrete movement will always occur as the soil moisture content changes from season to season. The method of construction used
when this structure was built seems to have the inheren t characteristic of slight structural
movement.” In opposition, plaintiff offered evidence that : (1) Serke could not recall which Engeo reports she received when she designed the home’s foundation ; (2) Wright did not
inform Serke “ differential fill was p resent” on the property ; (3) Serke “was unaware that differential fill was present” on the property when she designed the home’s foundation ; (4) Wright probably did not look at the Engeo reports and when asked whether he gave Serke anything in addition to the building plans, he stated, “I don’t believe I did [;] ” (5) Wright did not know the depth of the fill soil on the property because he “just never paid attention” and because another Shapell department “dealt with” that issue ; ( 6 ) w hen
asked whether he co nfirmed the amount of depth of the fill on the property, Wright stated, “I have no clue. . . . I don’t know what

. . . i s fill, what’s not, what depths or anything [;] ” ( 7 ) Shapell did not provide Wright with s tatutory disclosures when he purchased the home ; and (8 ) when he sold the home to Dr. Laux, Wright stated i n the real

estate t ra nsfer disclosure s tatement he was unaware of the presence of fill on the property

. W e are required to view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to plaintiff . ( Ennabe , supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 705 .) Applying this standard, plaintiff’s evidence persuades us there is a triable issue of material fact regarding whether Shapell concealed material information about the property’s soil conditions from S erke and Wright

. T he evidence plaintiff offered in opposition to the motion demonstrates Wright did not pay attention to the property’s soil condition when the house was being constructed and did not know what soil was “fill, what’s not, what depths or an ything.” Additionally, Wright did not inform Serke “differential fill was present” on the property and was not sure what information he gave Serke when she designed the home’s
foundation. For her part, Serke could not say which reports she received and “w as13

unaware that differential fill was present” when she designed the foundation for the home. Finally, Wright stated he was unaware of the presence of fill on the property when
he sold the home to Dr. Laux

. In light of this evidence, w e conclude the cour t erred by granting Shapell’s motion for adjudication on plaintiff’s fraudulent concealment claim

. II. A Jury Must Determine Disputed Facts Underlying the Determination of

Whether the Construction Defect Causes of Action

Accrued to Plaintiff
Plaintiff contends she was entitled to have a jury resolve factual disputes pertaining to “when and to whom the causes of action accrued.” We review de novo the court’s ruling denying plaintiff a jury trial on the issue of accrual

. ( Villano v. Waterman
Convalesce nt Hospital, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1189, 1205 ; see also IBM Personal
Pension Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1299 .) “Civil litigants in California are guaranteed the right to trial by jury by California
Constitu tion, article 1, section 16 [

. ] ” ( Windsor Square Homeowners Ass n. v. Citation
Homes (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 547, 550 ( Windsor Square ).) 3 This “ right extends to factual questions only; issues of law are triable by the court.” ( Alpert v. Villa Romano
Homeown ers Ass n. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1320, 1328 & fn. 6 ( Alpert ); Code Civ. Proc., § 591 [“[a]n issue of law must be tried by the court”]; Evid. Code, § 310 [court decides questions of law, and the determination of issues of fact preliminary to the admission of evidence].) Put another way, “[t]he right to a trial by jury is a right to have the jury try
and determine issues of fact .” (7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Trial, § 81, p.
107 .) “The right to trial by jury is a basic and fundamental part of ou r system of jurisprudence and should be zealously guarded [

. ] ” ( Plascencia, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 428 .) A t least one court has expressed a “healthy skepticism of removing factual questions from juries [

. ] ” ( Alpert, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1328. )

3 “ Th[is] guaranty extends to all cases which were triable to a jury at common law when California adopted its first Constitution in 1850.” ( Windsor Square
, supra , 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 55 0.) Plaintiff contends her case is “an action at law and is encompassed by the constitutional jury guaranty.” ( Id . at p. 551.) Shapel l does argue otherwise.14

As we have stated, “ ‘ standing ’ ” in the construction defect context refers to “when a cause of action for design or construction defects accrues and who then owns it [ ] or

. . . who doesn’t own it.” ( Krusi, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 999 , italics omi tted .) “A cause of action for damage to real property accrues when the defendant’s act causes

“ ‘ immediate and permanent injury’ ” to the property or . . . when there is ‘[a]ctual and appreciable harm’ to the property.” ( Id. at p. 1005; see also Keru Inves tments, Inc. v.
Cube Co. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1423 ( Keru ) .) In the construction defect context,

t he issue of to whom “ a cause of action accrues is a question of fact. ” ( Krusi, supra , 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1006.) 4

A trial court may decide whether a plaintiff has standing to sue for negligent design, engineering, or construction of a building

— i.e.
, whether the cause of action
accrues to th at plaintiff

— where the facts underlying that determination are undisputed. ( Krusi, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1006

- 1008 [ summary judgment proper where there

was no triable issue of material fact regarding accrual of construction defect causes of
action ] ; Vaughn v. Dame Construction Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 144, 146

- 147 [ facts underlying standing to sue for d efective construction were undisputed ] ; Mayer v. C.W.
Driver (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 48, 52 [ court held bifurcated bench trial where plaintiffs’ standing to s u e for latent construction defects was “based on undisputed facts”] ; see also Weil & Brown, Cal. Pra ctice Guide: Civ il Procedure B efore Trial (The Rutter Group 2014) ¶ 2:7 8.5 , p. 2

- 28.4 (Rutter) .)
But where the determination of whether causes of action for negligent design, engineering, or construction of a building accrue to the plaintiff depend s on dis puted facts or require credibility determines , the jury must make the factual find ings on the issue

. We find support for our conclusion in Jefferson v. County of Kern (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th

4 We rely on Krusi only for the limited proposition that to whom a cause of action accrues is a question of fact. ( Krusi, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1006.) We have no occasion to comment on questions other courts have raised a bout whether certain language in Krusi “may be imprecise or overbroad.” ( Standard Fire Ins

. Co

. v. Spectrum Community Ass n. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1144 ; see also Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009 ) 180 Cal.App.4th 980, 994

- 995 ( Jasmine ). )15

606 ( Jefferson ) , a case not cited by either party. In Jefferson , the plaintiff sued a county and a physician for malpractice and fraud. The trial court denied the plaintiff ’ s motion for a jury determination of the dates of a ccrual of his causes of action. In a bifurcated bench trial, the court determined the plaintiff ’s causes of action were barred because they
accrued more t han one year before his application for leave to pres ent a late claim to the county unde r Government Code section 946.6 . ( Jefferson , at p. 609.) The plaintiff appealed, contendin g he was entitled to “ a jury trial

. . . on the issue of the dates of
accrual of his causes of action

. ” ( Id. at p. 610 , fn. omitted .) Although t he Jefferson court determined there was no right to a jury trial under
Government Code section 946.6
, t he court concluded pla intiff “ was entitled to a jury trial on the issue of the date of accrual of his causes of action” for statute of limitations purposes. ( Jefferson, supra , 98 Cal.App.4th at p p . 609 , 614 .) The court explained, “[t]he
determination about when a cause of act ion has accrued for purposes of ” the statute of
limitations “ is a proper subject for a jury when the facts are in dispute” and observed, “ a medical malpractice plaintiff has the right to a jury trial on factual issues relevant to the defense, among others, of the date of accrual for purpos es of the statute of limitation s .” ( Id

. at p p . 615 , 619 .) Although standing in the construction defect is distinct from a statute of limitations defense, the concepts are similar in that they both concern the
accrual of a claim, a factual issue

. 5 ( S ee Keru, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1423

. ) H ere as in Jefferson , plaintiff has the right to a jury trial on disputed issues of fact regarding

5 Shapell contends the court correctly determined “the legal issue of ‘standing’ without a jury” because “[s]tanding to sue is a threshold, jurisdictional issue.” Characterizing the issue as a threshold jurisdictional issue does not assist Shapell. ( See Jasmine, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 993.) As we have explained, where a party’s “standing” to sue for construction defect depends on disputed facts or credibility determinations, the parties are entitled to a jury trial on the issue. (Rutter, supra , 2:78.5, p. 2

- 28.4; see also Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, 877 [controverted factual issues underlying a question of law “must be passed upon by the jury” before the court can resolve the legal issue]; Plascencia, supra, 103 C al.App.4th at p. 414 [jury must determine factual disputes underlying the court’s resolution of a threshold legal issue].)16

when her cause s of action accrued , such as whether and when there was actual and

a ppreciable harm to her property. ( Jefferson, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at p. 619.) Citing People v. Betts (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1039, 1054 ( Betts ), Shapell argues courts frequently determine disputed factual issues before resolving a “dispositi ve procedural
issue in the case. ” In Betts , our high court concluded a defendant does not have a right to a jury trial on disputed facts establishing the existence or absence of territorial jurisdiction in a criminal proceeding. ( Id. at pp. 1044, 1047, 1054.) The Betts co urt “observed that ‘although questions of fact relating to the substantive issue of guilt or innocence are within the province of the jury, questions of law concerning procedural issues that do not themselves determine guilt or innocence

— including any unde rlying questions of fact

— are within the province of the court.’ [Citation.]” ( Id

. at p. 1048.) The court then concluded “[b]ecause territorial jurisdiction is a procedural matter that relates to the authority of California courts to adjudicate the case and not to the guilt of the accused or the limit of authorized punishment, a jury trial on the factual questions that establish jurisdiction is not required by the federal Constitution.” ( Id. at p. 1054 , fn.
omitted .)
Betts does not assist Shapell. Bet ts considered a procedural question: whether California courts have authority to hold a person criminally liable. ( Betts, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1054.) As the Betts court emphasized, the factual issue of the existence or absence of territorial jurisdict ion is unrelated to the substantive issues of guilt or innocence of crimes charged, or the truth of facts that increase punishment. As to those substantive issues, the accused is entitled to a jury trial. ( Ibid., citing Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U .S. 296 and Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466.) Here, unlike the threshold issue of territorial jurisdiction in Betts , the issue of whether certain defects and consequential damages manifested themselves during Dr. Laux ’s ownership are related to

— and may well be the same as

— substantive issues the jury will be asked to decide when it considers whether plaintiff has proven her claims of defective design and construction of her home or fraudulent concealment of the alleged
defects. Here t he cour t’s decision on these factual issues turned in part on credibility17

determinations. The same factual issues of whether certain causes of action accrued to plaintiff or to a prior owner are central to the substan tive merits of plaintiff’ s tort claims. Shape ll’s reliance on Windsor Square does not alter our conclusion. There, the appellate court held facts underlying a res judicata defense are tried to the court. ( Windsor Square
, supra , 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 557.) Windsor Square explained, “[t]he
rule that the facts underlying the applicability of the res judicata defense are tried to the court, and not to a jury, although it is a legal and not an equitable defense, is well settled. One reason that such factual issues are tried to the court seems apparent. The issues are
often mixed fact

- law determinations, involving, for instance, the assertion of jurisdiction, a decision better made by the court alone. Ordinarily, the facts that need to be determined are fairly simple

— for example, what the complaint alle ges in the first action versus what the complaint alleges in the second action. The pleadings must be studied to determine what claims were or could have been raised, who were the parties sued, whether the party against whom the bar is asserted was in pri vity with a party to the prior suit, whether the prior adjudication was a judgment on the merits. While all these issues may have factual predicates, they are peculiarly legal determinations.” ( Ibid. ) Windsor Square is distinguishable . That case “ did not involve a disputed issue of
fact based upon conflicting evidence but rather a disputed issue of law based up on undisputed facts

— in other words, a legal issue of the sort which is traditionally the peculiar province of the court.” ( Jefferson, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at p. 619.) Here and i n
contrast to Windsor Square
, “the facts that need to be determined” to assess whether the causes of action accrue to plaintiff are not “peculiarly legal determinations

. ” ( Windsor Square , supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 557 ; Krusi , supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1006 ; see Cornette v. Department of Transportation (2001) 26 Cal.4th 63, 67 [distinguishing Windsor Square on same grounds with respect to design defense immunity] .) Nor are the
facts relevant to the accrual “fairly si mple [

. ] ” ( Windsor Square, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 557.) The court conducted a nine

- day bench trial to evaluate whether there was actual and appreciable harm to the property while Dr. Laux owned it

.18

W hen the determination of accrual in the constructio n defect context turns on disputed facts or requires credibility determinations, the jury must make factual findings

as to whom the cause of action accrued

. While a llowing a trial court to resolve disputed
factual issue s underlying accrual may promote jud icial economy , “ concerns about administrative efficiency and judicial economy cannot ”

— in this situation

— “ overcome

a [plaintiff ’ s ] right to a jury trial. ” ( Plascencia, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 430.) Our holding does not prevent a defendant from br inging a motion for summary judgment to challenge a plaintiff’s standing to sue in a construction defect case ; such a motion will properly be granted where there is no triable issue of material fact as “to whom [ ] a cause of action accrue[d]

. ” (See Krusi , supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1006.) Having reached this result, we need not address the parties’ other claims

. We express no opinion as to whom the causes of action in this case accrue d

. (See Jefferson,

supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at p. 611.)
DISPOSITION
Th e order granting summary adjudication for Shapell on plaintiff’s fraudulent concealment cause of action is reversed. The judgment for Shapell is also reversed. Plaintiff shall recover costs on appeal . ( Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.2 7 8 (a) .)

_ ________________________ Jones, P.J.
We concur:

_________________________ Simons, J.

_________________________ Bruiniers, J.19

A139385 Superior Court of the County of Contra Costa, No. MSC10

- 00598, Judith S. Craddick, Judge.

McGuire Coats LLP, Wendy McGuire Coats for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Horvitz & Levy LLP, H. Thomas Watson and Daniel J. Gonzalez; Lorber, Greenfield & Polito LLP, Joyia Z. Greenfield, Lisa M. Cappelluti and Adam M. Stoddard for Defendant and Respondent.