Little v. Speckert

2 Citing cases

  1. Wentland v. Wass

    126 Cal.App.4th 1484 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 66 times
    Refraining from applying the litigation privilege where doing so would "not encourage finality [or] avoid litigation"

    (7) "It has been well established in this state that if the cause of action arises from a breach of a promise set forth in the contract, the action is ex contractu but if it arises from a breach of duty growing out of the contract it is ex delicto. [Citations.]" ( Little v. Speckert (1959) 170 Cal.App.2d 725, 727 [ 339 P.2d 611].) The cross-complaint alleged Wass and Reiss breached the Parkview Terrace agreement by authorizing negative comments to be made about Wentland's management, not because such comments were false (although it alleged they were), but because they had promised not to continue to make such comments.

  2. Edwards v. Centex Real Estate Corp.

    53 Cal.App.4th 15 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 263 times
    Holding that "the privilege attaches at that point in time that imminent access to the courts is seriously proposed by a party in good faith for the purpose of resolving a dispute, and not when a threat of litigation is made merely as a means of obtaining settlement"

    It is upon this fraud that appellants assert the invalidity of the releases, in connection with the alleged larger underlying conspiracy to defraud appellants by preventing them from discovering respondents' negligence in the design, building, and repairing of their home foundations. ( Silberg, supra, 50 Cal.3d at pp. 211, 220; Voth v. Wasco Public Util. Dist. (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 353, 356 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 608]; Mahon v. Berg (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 588, 590 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 356]; cf. Little v. Speckert (1959) 170 Cal.App.2d 725, 726-727 [ 339 P.2d 611] [cause of action alleging breach of promise set forth in contract sounds in contract and not tort].) (7) Appellants also contend that section 47(b) does not bar their causes of action against respondents for negligence and willful misconduct because those causes of action are based in part on evidence of respondents' supposedly noncommunicative conduct of preparing a defective design for repair of the slab foundations, and making inadequate repairs.