Court Opinion

ID: 9736466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:57:45.546164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:06.862597
License: Public Domain

STONE, J. pro tern.,* Concurring and Dissenting.
I agree with the majority opinion which awards respondents the entire purchase price of $14,000 plus the value of all improvements placed on the property by them in the sum of $3,452.68, but I would also require that respondents return the property to appellant. Respondents in their complaint allege that they paid $14,000 for the property and in addition $3,452.68 for improvements and landscaping. Their prayer for relief reads as follows:
“1. For general damages in the sum of $10,000.00.
“2. For $14,000.00 consideration paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants.
“3. For the sum of $3452.68 for landscaping and improvements made by the plaintiffs.
*336“4. For cost of suit incurred and to be incurred herein.
“5. For such other and further relief as to the Court may seem meet and proper in the premises.”
Thus, respondents did in substance file an action in rescission seeking restitution. The relief afforded by the court was consonant with restitution since their claim for general damages was denied and they were awarded the $14,000 consideration and $3,452.68 for improvements. An allowance of damages for the costs of improvements in addition to return of the consideration is proper (Lobdell v. Miller, 114 Cal.App.2d 328, 334 [250 P.2d 357]). But it is my opinion that the court should have also ordered the return of the property to the appellant (Alder v. Drudis, 30 Cal.2d 372, 384 [182 P.2d 195]). It would appear that if the filled land is as likely to slide, spilling the soil and improvements on the neighboring land as was indicated by the testimony, one would expect the respondents to demand that appellant take back the property in order to protect themselves from future liability.

 Assigned hy Chairman of Judicial Council.