Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

JOLLEY v. CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, 213 Cal.App.4th 1486 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals of California Number: incaco20130307021 Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 07, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 07, 2013
Summary: [Modification of opinion ( 213 Cal.App.4th 872 ; ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___), upon denial of rehearing.] THE COURT. — IT IS ORDERED that the published opinion filed herein on February 11, 2013, be modified as follows and the petition for rehearing is DENIED: 1. At the top of page 6 [213 Cal.App.4th 881, advance report, 1st par., lines 6-8], first line, the sentence that reads, "Jolley further testified that as a result of these representations he was induced to complete construction at a cost of $10
More

[Modification of opinion (213 Cal.App.4th 872; ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___), upon denial of rehearing.]

THE COURT. — IT IS ORDERED that the published opinion filed herein on February 11, 2013, be modified as follows and the petition for rehearing is DENIED:

1. At the top of page 6 [213 Cal.App.4th 881, advance report, 1st par., lines 6-8], first line, the sentence that reads, "Jolley further testified that as a result of these representations he was induced to complete construction at a cost of $100,000, borrowing from family and friends to do so" shall be deleted and replaced with the following sentence:

Jolley further testified that as a result of these representations he was induced to "borrow heavily to finish the project."

2. On page 29 [213 Cal.App.4th 900, advance report, 3d full par., lines 1-3], second full paragraph, first line, the sentence that reads, "He invested $100,000 in finishing construction on the property shortly before foreclosure proceedings were initiated" shall be deleted and replaced with the following sentence:

He invested funds borrowed from other sources in finishing construction on the property shortly before foreclosure proceedings were initiated.

3. On page 29 [213 Cal.App.4th 881, advance report, 3d full par., lines 6-8], second full paragraph, the last sentence that reads, "Had Jolley known that Chase would ultimately foreclose on the property, he would have had no incentive to invest an additional $100,000 in its completion" shall be deleted. No new sentence is required.

There is no change in the judgment.

Respondent's petition for rehearing is denied.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer