Opinion ID: 721571
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Centex Real Estate Action

Text: 12 According to the third amended complaint in Centex Real Estate Corp. v. Stanford Ranch, Inc., Placer County Superior Court No. 83221, Centex entered into a written sales contract with Stanford on or about January 22, 1988, for the purchase of real property known as Parcel 11, Phase II, of the Stanford Ranch Development (purchase property). Under the agreement, Stanford is required to use good faith and due diligence to obtain approval of a tentative subdivision map ('tentative map') for the property from the City of Rocklin by July 1, 1988. If Stanford failed to diligently process the tentative map for approval, [Centex] had the option to extend the closing to at least January 1, [1989,] by giving written notice of such extension to Stanford Ranch on or before July 11, 1988. 13 Centex alleges that Stanford became aware in or about March 1987 that its Phase II project contained wetlands falling under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers, and that prior to the filling of wetlands and development of the property, an appropriate permit would need to be obtained pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Centex also alleges that Stanford was aware that it had to obtain this permit before it could obtain a large parcel map and sell the property. 14 Centex alleges that by June 1987, Stanford was aware that it had filled in wetlands in violation of Section 404 and that it needed to obtain an appropriate permit from the Corps. Centex also alleges that from November 1987, until the contract was entered into on January 22, 1988, Stanford failed to disclose, actively concealed, and misrepresented these facts to [Centex].... 15 In or about January 1988, the Corps discovered that Stanford had been filling in wetlands unlawfully and without the required Section 404 permit. In or about February 1988, the Corps issued a cease and desist order to prevent further impact on the wetlands. 16 Stanford disclosed to Centex for the first time on June 3, 1988, that it might not be able to obtain the needed approvals in order to close escrow by July 1, 1988, due to unanticipated demands by the City of Rocklin. On June 29, 1988, Centex extended the closing date to December 30, 1988. However, on July 6, 1988, Stanford allegedly repudiated the agreement. On August 4, 1988, and September 22, 1988, Centex alleges that it communicated to Stanford that the contract remained valid. Stanford refused to modify its position. 17 Based on the foregoing, Centex asserts claims for specific performance; breach of contract; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; negligent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; and material nondisclosure.