From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Page v. Hunt

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three.
Nov 13, 2003
G030888 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2003)

Opinion

G030888.

11-13-2003

WILLIAM M. PAGE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LARRY J. HUNT et al., Defendants and Respondents.


The petition for rehearing is DENIED. It is ordered that the opinion filed on October 14, 2003, be modified as follows:

1. On page 5, in the second sentence of the first new paragraph, change "whether Pages actions constituted a breach terminating the lease . . ." to "whether Pages actions resulted in termination of the lease . . . ."

2. On page 5, delete the heading "B. Pages Leasehold Interest Was Not Extinguished By His Bankruptcy" and substitute "B. Pages Failure to Assume the Lease Does Not Support Summary Judgment."

3. On page 5, following the first sentence of the second new paragraph, which begins "The Hunts contend Pages failure to assume . . . ," insert the following new sentence: "The trial court agreed and found that "[a]ny residual interest in the Lease that Page may have retained in his individual capacity terminated in his personal Bankruptcy, when the Lease was not assumed." In the next sentence in the original opinion, delete "To the contrary" and substitute "But" so that the sentence reads: "But the parties separate statements of fact . . . ."

4. On page 5, change the last sentence of the second new paragraph so that it reads: "The fact the lease was not listed in Pages bankruptcy demonstrates the trial court erred in finding the bankruptcy terminated his leasehold interest." Immediately thereafter, insert the following new sentence: "Because Page retained an interest in the Lease in his individual capacity, summary judgment was improper."

5. On page 5, following the revised last sentence of the second new paragraph, insert a new paragraph that reads:

"True, Page assigned his individual interest in the Lease to DePage and later sold DePages interest to Albert Palucci, but the parties disputed whether Pages initial assignment to DePage was valid. The Hunts argued, and the court agreed, it was not valid because their alleged oral consent did not absolve Page from securing their written consent to assignment. Yet the courts finding Page did not validly assign his interest, combined with the fact the lease was not listed in his bankruptcy, means Page retained an interest in the lease in his individual capacity, thus again precluding summary judgment."

6. On page 7, change the second-to-last sentence of the first new paragraph so that it reads: "DePages failure to assume the Lease in its second bankruptcy proceeding says nothing about the validity of Pages individual interest."

7. On page 8, change the first sentence of the first new paragraph so that it reads: "Having concluded the trial courts grant of summary judgment on the grounds the Lease terminated as a matter of law was improper, we reverse the judgment."

These modifications do not change the judgment.

WE CONCUR: BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J. and IKOLA, J.


Summaries of

Page v. Hunt

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three.
Nov 13, 2003
G030888 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2003)
Case details for

Page v. Hunt

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM M. PAGE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LARRY J. HUNT et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three.

Date published: Nov 13, 2003

Citations

G030888 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2003)