Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Cal. Super. - 5th Dist.February 3, 2021

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT DEMURRER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 1 Michelle Jorgensen, SBN 225121 2125 Kern St, Ste. 100 Fresno, Ca 93721 559-892-5202 Attorney for Defendants: John Carter and Sally Carter SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO MATTHEW R. WILLIAMS, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. JOHN R. CARTER and SALLY F. CARTER, husband and wife as joint tenants; and DOES 1-5, inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 20CECG02083 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT DEMURRER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT DATE: OCTOBER 22, 2021 TIME: 3:30 PM DEPT: 502 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT I. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff filed his Complaint (herein “Complaint”) based upon the false allegation that the parties had a written contract for the purchase of Defendant’s real property. The parties met and conferred on multiple occasions via telephone calls and emails regarding the numerous deficiencies in the Complaint. The last attempt to meet and confer occurred at the hearing on Unlawful Detainer in Fresno County Superior Court Case # 21CECL00150. The parties engaged E-FILED 4/8/2021 3:53 PM Superior Court of California County of Fresno By: C. York, Deputy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT DEMURRER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 2 most recently in a four-way conference on March 1, 2021, in which the deficiencies in the Complaint were discussed at length. The parties reached a Stipulation in regards to the Unlawful Detainer matter; however, the Plaintiff was adamantly opposed to any settlement offer and expressed that he was not open to any modification of the Verified Complaint based upon the failure to have a meeting of minds as it pertained to the negotiations to contract for the sale of the property. The “written contract” proffered in this case to evidence a valid contract for the sale of the property is a thoroughly deficient escrow document that explicitly states that it is not, alone, an enforceable binding agreement. Furthermore, the Escrow was cancelled by Defendant’s on November 17, 2020. As there is no reasonable possibility that the deficiencies can be cured by amendment, leave to amend should be denied. II. STATEMENT OF LAW ON DEMURRER A party may demurrer to the whole complaint or in part to any of the causes of action stated therein. Code of Civ. Proc. §430.50. A party against whom a complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer, to the pleading on the ground the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of actions. CCP 430.10(e). A demurrer serves to test the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law and it only relates to questions of law. Johnson v. County of Los Angeles (1993)143 Cal. App 3d 298, 306. For purposes of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, all material facts properly pled are admitted as true. Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal. 3d 584, 591. However, a demurrer does not admit conclusions, deductions or contingencies of fact or law alleged in the complaint, or facts impossible to law. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal. 3 d 311, 318. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT DEMURRER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 3 Furthermore, the Court is not bound to accept conclusory, ineffectual, or improperly pleaded allegations. Nicholson v. McClathchy Newspapers (1986) 177 Cal. App 3d 509, 514. In addition, “it is settled that presumptions are always against the pleader, and all doubts are to be resolved against him, for is to be presumed that he stated his cause as favorably as possible to himself; if a fact necessary to the pleaders cause of action is not alleged it must be taken as having no existence.” Feldesman v. McGovern (1941) Cal. App. 2d 566, 570. If a demurrer is sustained and there is no reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment, then leave to amend should be denied. Scott v. City of Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal. 3d 541; Aubry v. Tri-Ckity Hospital Dist (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967. III. DEMURRER A. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE- PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM BECAUSE THERE WAS NO UNDERYING WRITTEN CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY In order to sufficiently state a claim for specific performance, there must be an underlying specific, definite and enforceable contract. Where a contract is for purchase of real estate, an action for specific performance asks the court to order the defendant to sell the property to the plaintiff on the terms stated in the contract. Specific performance of a contract may be decreed whenever: (1) its terms are sufficiently definite; (2) consideration is adequate; (3) there is substantial similarity of the requested performance to the contractual terms; (4) there is mutuality of remedies; and (5) plaintiff’s legal remedy is inadequate. Blackburn v. Charnley, 117 Cal. App. 4th 758, 766 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT DEMURRER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 4 “It is, of course, basic hornbook law that the existence of a contract is a necessary element to an action based on contract, regardless whether the plaintiff seeks specific performance or damages for breach of contract. (4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Pleading, § 476, p. 570; 5 Witkin, op. cit. supra, § 741, p. 199.) Consent of the parties is essential to the existence of a contract. (Civ. Code, § 1550) Consent must be free, mutual and "Communicated by each to the other." (Civ. Code, § 1565)”. Roth v. Malson, 67 Cal.App.4th 552 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). Here, as explained under “Breach of Contract” below, the Plaintiff simply does not begin to meet the pleading standard to adequately state a cause of action for Breach of Contract. There is no Contract in this case; however, even if there was in fact a contract, Plaintiff must also demonstrate adequate consideration for a Specific Performance Cause of Action. The Verified Complaint fails to present any evidence as to the value of the property in order to meets the requirements of a specific performance cause of action. “It is a rule of equity, embodied in section 3391 of the Civil Code, that specific performance cannot be enforced against a party to a contract if he has not received adequate consideration for the contract, and if the contract is not, as to him, just and reasonable. In other words, the complaint must show that the party against whom enforcement is sought has received adequate consideration and that the contract is just and reasonable.” Flood v. Templeton (1905) 148 Cal. 374, 377. As this court has said in Bruck v. Tucker, 42 Cal. 346, "The court is to be satisfied that the contract is founded upon, not merely a valuable, but an adequate, consideration. But how are we to be so satisfied here, where there is an absence of all averment upon that point." (Windsor v. Miner, 124 Cal. 492, [57 P. 386]; Stiles v. Cain, 134 Cal. 170, [ 66 P. 231]. Id.@ 378. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT DEMURRER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 5 Based upon the lack of a Contract for the sale of property and any evidence to corroborate the adequacy of the consideration, i.e., purchase price of the property, the Defendant’s request that the court sustain the request for Demurrer to this cause of action and request that Plaintiff be denied leave to amend because Plaintiff cannot possibly amend to state a cause of action for specific performance. B. BREACH OF CONTRACT- PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDECE OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT. The plaintiff fails to establish facts or present evidence to substantiate the allegations of breach of contract. An agreement to sell real property or an interest therein is invalid unless the agreement is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or his or her agent. Civ. Code §1624(a)(3); Elias Real Estate, LLC v. Tsent (2007) 156 Cal. App. 4th 425, 430. To recover on a breach of contract action, the plaintiff must prove: (1) that the plaintiff and defendant entered into a valid contract; (2) that plaintiff performed under the contract or that performance was excused; (3) that the defendant failed to perform under the contract; (4) that plaintiff was harmed; and (5) that defendant’s breach of contract was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. CACI 303. To prove that a contract was created, Plaintiff must prove that (1) the contract terms were clear enough that the parties could understand what each was required to do; (2) that the parties agreed to give each other something of value; (3) that the parties agreed to the terms of the contract. The Plaintiff relies entirely on the Escrow Instructions attached as Exhibit 3 to the Verified Complaint. The Escrow Instructions presented as “the Contract” are woefully deficient as to signatures and critical terms and it is only one of multiple escrow instructions that were 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT DEMURRER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 6 signed during the negotiation process. In addition, Escrow was cancelled by Defendant’s on November 17, 2020. According to the 2010 Publication of the State of California Department of Real Estate Information Relating to Real Estate Practice, Licensing and Examinations, “5. When all principals to the escrow have signed mutual (conforming) instructions, the escrow becomes perfected. If only one principal has signed, that principal may terminate the proposed escrow at any time prior to the other principal’s signing of conforming escrow instructions. As an additional principal, the lender(s) typically reserve the right to withdraw their instructions, instruments, funds, and related documents if the escrow instructions of the buyer and seller do not conform to the instructions of the lender(s).” https://www.dre.ca.gov/files/pdf/refbook/ref08.pdf As the Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that both parties signed conformed Escrow Instructions, Defendant’s cancellation was appropriate and binding, rendering Plaintiff’s complete Breach of Contract action moot. The Exhibit 3 Escrow Instructions consists of nine pages that are all dated August 11, 2020. The last two pages of the are entitled Initial Instructions (herein “Initial Instructions”). The Defendant, Sally Carter is omitted. The Plaintiff did not sign this document. On page 1 of 2, it states, in part: “In order for Old Republic Title Company, as Escrow Holder, to proceed with the processing of this transaction, the undersigned agree to and understand the following: 1. A deposit of $500 is required prior to the acceptance of, or any work beginning on this transaction. 4. A title policy will be issued in conjunction with this transaction. The fee for this policy is estimate at $_______. An escrow fee, together with other fess incidental to the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT DEMURRER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 7 processing of the escrow, will also be charged. The fees for these services are estimated at $_______. 5. The escrow instructions to be prepared in connection with this transaction, alone, may not be enforceable as a binding agreement and will not address other concerns which are normally incorporated in a real estate purchased contract. 6. Old Republic Title Company is prohibited by law from drawing real estate purchase contracts. Buyer’s and Seller’s Instructions to Old Republic Title Company will be prepared after receipt of both this document fully executed by all parties and the deposit referred to above.” Plaintiff never claims in the Verified Complaint that he made the $500 deposit and the Instructions state that they alone are not enforceable as a binding contract. The initial first seven pages of Exhibit 3 are entitled and herein referred as “Sale Escrow Instructions”. The total consideration listed is $160,000. Again, this document is completely deficient. On page one, it does not indicate that the buyer deposited any money into escrow. In accordance with the Escrow Instructions, this indicates that escrow is not yet commenced. On page 2 there is no indication as to how the escrow holder is authorized to vest title and there are no initials. It lists the close of escrow to be estimated at August 28, 2020. The Plaintiff did not “approve and accept the foregoing instructions” as indicated by his lack of signature on page 6. An attempt to counter offer the Initial Escrow Instructions were signed by Plaintiff omitted from his Verified Complaint. The Estimated Settlement Statement dated September 3, 2020 attached hereto as Exhibit 1. This document states: “Escrow instructions previously handed you under date of July 20, 2020 are hereby 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT DEMURRER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 8 supplemented and or amended as follows: As agreed to by current buyer and seller, the purchase price is to be $160,000. There is to also be a $5,000 credit to buyer from seller for closing costs.” The Petitioner has presented evidence to substantiate the fact that the parties were negotiating the sale of the property, but fails to present a prima facie case of Contract. In fact, if the court were to interrupt the Exhibit 3 Escrow Instructions to be a valid contract, this contract moot was canceled when the Defendant’s did not accept the September 3, 2020 Escrow Instruction Amendment which effectively was a counteroffer that was not signed and therefore rejected. ". . . it cannot be said that we have a contract where a counterproposal to a written offer was never accepted by the original offeror." Ajax Holding Co. v. Heinsbergen (1944) 64 Cal.App.2d 665,671.) “[T]erms proposed in an offer must be met exactly, precisely and unequivocally for its acceptance to result in the formation of a binding contract; and a qualified acceptance amounts to a new proposal or counteroffer putting an end to the original offer.” Panagotacos v. Bank of America (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 851,855-856 [70 Cal.Rptr.2d 595. Here, the Plaintiff did not sign the Exhibit 3 Escrow Instructions that were signed by Defendant’s, instead, he signed the amended instructions in September. The parties signed two different documents and Plaintiff’s September instructions created a new option that was not accepted by Defendants. There was never a Contract. “In order for acceptance of a proposal to result in the formation of a contract, the proposal ‘must be sufficiently definite, or must call for such definite terms in the acceptance, that the performance promised is reasonably certain.’ [Citation.]”Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 811 [71Cal.Rptr.2d 265. An essential element of any contract is “mutual consent.” The “Consent is not mutual, unless the parties all agree upon the same thing in the same sense.” The existence of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT DEMURRER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 9 mutual consent is determined by objective rather than subjective criteria, the test being what the outward manifestations of consent would lead a reasonable person to believe. Accordingly, the primary focus in determining the existence of mutual consent is upon the acts of the parties involved. Monster EnergyCo. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781, 789 [249 Cal.Rptr.3d 295, 444 P.3d 97. The Defendant’s signed fatally incomplete escrow instructions that specifically state they alone are not a binding contract. The Petitioner did not even agree to the instructions. Then an amendment is signed by Petitioner a month later. Again, evidence that there was not a meeting of the minds. Under California Law, an enforceable contract requires that there is a “meeting of the minds” on all material points. Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App. 3d. 425, 431- 32. The Verified Complaint presents merely a lengthy negotiation process in which the parties failed to reach an agreement on the terms of the sale of the property and Defendant is now attempting to create a contract in the eyes of the court that never existed. ‘Consent is not mutual, unless the parties all agree upon the same thing in the same sense.’ ( Civ. Code, § 1580). The problem with uncertain contract provisions is the uncertain term “provides no rational method for determining breach or computing damages.” Lada v. Cal.State Auto.Ass’n, (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 771. Plaintiff’s tender of $1,411.42 on November 6, 2020 did not create a contract where there wasn’t one. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for breach of contract. As there is no reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment, leave to amend should be denied. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT DEMURRER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 10 C. BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING- PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are in breach of this implied covenant because “in or around May 2020, the parties entered into the agreement for the sale and purchase of the Subject Property.” Verified Complaint, at P. 10, line 7-8. Thereafter, Defendant allegedly demanded more money after the agreement was confirmed and breached the contract when Plaintiff refused to comply with the request for more money. Id. at line 13-14. The Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint fails to establish a contract as required to adequately plead this cause of action. “There is no obligation to deal fairly or in good faith absent an existing contract. If there exists a contractual relationship between the parties . . . the implied covenant is limited to assuring compliance with the express terms of the contract, and cannot be extended to create obligations not contemplated in the contract.” Racine & Laramie (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1026, 1032. If the allegations do not go beyond the statement of a mere contract breach and, relying on the same alleged acts, simply seek the same damages or other relief already claimed in a companion contract cause of action, they may be disregarded as superfluous as no additional claim is actually stated. Careau &Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1395 [272Cal.Rptr. 387].) Here, the Plaintiff restates the same facts in support of the claim for Breach of Contract. CACI 325 states, in part, that “good faith means honesty of purpose without any intention to mislead or to take unfair advantage of another. Generally speaking, it means being faithful to one’s duty or obligation.” The only assertion made in the Verified Complaint is that the negotiations fell through. This does not substantiate allegations that Defendants acted to mislead or take unfair advantage of the Plaintiff. For the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT DEMURRER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 11 reasons stated herein, the Defendant’s hereby request that the court grant the general demurrer as to this cause of action and leave to amend denied. D. INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION-PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE EVIDENCE THAT HE RELIED UPON FALSE REPRESENTATION BY DEFENDANT A complaint for intentional misrepresentation must allege the following elements: (1) a knowingly false representation by the defendant; (2) an intent to deceive or induce reliance; (3) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff; and (4) resulting damages.” Service by Medallion, Inc. v. Clorox Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1807, 1816. The Plaintiff fails to state facts to substantiate the claim that Defendant’s “knew their representations were false” and wanted Plaintiff to rely on the representations. While Plaintiff states that the agreement was entered into around May of 2020, it wasn’t until November of 2020 that Plaintiff paid the $1,411.42. In the time between June of 2020 and November of 2020, Plaintiff states that he held back rent payments at the direction of Defendant’s with the intention of paying the Defendants upon the sale of the Property. Verified Complaint, Pg. 12, line 6-9. There is no indication that the Plaintiff was in any way damaged by not making rent payments. The Plaintiff fails to meet the requirements of this cause of action and the demurrer should therefore be granted without leave to amend. E. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION- PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE CLAIM THAT DEFENDANT MADE ANY FALSE REPRESENTATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF RELIED UPON AND INJURY RESULTED All the elements of actionable fraud must be present before a claim can fall within the exception, and it must accordingly appear (1) that defendant made a material representation; (2) that it was false; (3) that he made it when he knew it was false, or made it recklessly, without any 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT DEMURRER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 12 knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion; (4) that he made it with the intention that it should be acted upon by plaintiff; (5) that plaintiff acted in reliance upon it; and (6) that he thereby suffered injury." Yellow Creek Logging Corp. v. Dare (1963) 216Cal.App.2d 50, 57. As previously stated, the Plaintiff presents only evidence of negotiations that were not tantamount to a valid contract for the sale of the property. Plaintiff fails to present specific statements made that were misrepresentations. The only statements and evidence presented are those that demonstrate that the parties, all of them, were back and forth in the negotiation process that entailed disagreeing on the purchase price, the time for payment, the time that escrow would open and close and the payment of rent during the time of the negotiations. Therefore, this cause of action fails as matter of law and demurrer for failure to state a claim should be sustained and the Plaintiff should be denied leave to amend. F. PERMANENT INJUNCTION-DEMURRER SHOULD BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND THERE ARE OTHER REMEDIES AVAILABLE. A permanent injunction is very different from a pendente lite injunction. A permanent injunction is an equitable remedy for certain torts or wrongful acts of a defendant where a damage remedy is inadequate. A permanent injunction is a determination on the merits that a plaintiff has prevailed on a cause of action for tort or other wrongful act against a defendant and that equitable relief is appropriate. A permanent injunction is not issued to maintain the status quo but is a final judgment on the merits. (6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Provisional Remedies, §§ 250, 251, pp. 216-218.) It is reviewed on appeal for the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. Richards v. Dower (1883) 64 Cal. 62, 64 [28 P. 113]. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT DEMURRER TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT - 13 A permanent injunction, as a final judgment on the merits, and does not maintain the status quo. The Verified Complaint fails to state a cause of action for the underlying claim of breach of contract upon which all relief would be considered. Therefore, the Plaintiff requests that the court grant the demurrer on this cause of action without leave to amend. III. CONCLUSTION For the foregoing, the Defendants respectfully request that her demurrer be sustained to each and every cause of action and every cause of action and that Plaintiff be denied leave to amend his Verified Compliant against Defendants. DATED: 4/7/21 Respectfully submitted, ___________________________ MICHELLE JORGENSEN ATTORENY FOR DEFENDANTS EXHIBIT 1 mi ~RxWfiifiEM‘NSfiKH. 'r- j}? ????’i'xli!Mizfi‘fii’m'im’iw **** f OLE) REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY * k * * * \ MINNIE“ (H ”If. ”I U Rll'l/Ill ll' HILL l\$l.‘RI\\'C}' (QHUI l' 7451 Nutlh Remmqlou Ava 3102 - Homo (TA - 9TH! - (55:9; 440-9249 ' FAX {559] “74643 ADDITIONAL ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS TO OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY Property Address: 1497 Keats Avenue Dam; September 3, 2020 OOVIS, CA 93611 Escrow No.2 1411019144-GR Escrow Officer: Galle Rock Escrow Instructions prewously handed you under date of July 20, 2020 are hereby supplemented and/or amended as follows: As agreed to by current buyer and seller, me purchase pnce «s to be $160,000.00. There Is to also be a $5,000.00 credit to buyer from seller for closmg costs. Except as provided for herein, all other terms and conditions are to remain as onginally set forth. Buyer(f): Matthew R Wnéluams Seller(s): John Caner Sally Fay Carter Received: Old Republic Tmc Company By Date GRM Additional Escrow lnstmcbons mmmmummwsmmw .',.- ‘ I ' ‘ I ' ' Z .‘i ‘ F‘Ev‘Mfll'mEmmmEM ***t i * , - , ' Q _ I OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COM PANY * * * * * a Mmumurml m u mzraim u. mtr Iw‘xvuautuniwr 7m noun tmrm-nunme vary;- -7-.;:m uh - 0172a - (559; «0424a . VAX (559)447-1543 Estimated SetUement Statement Buyer: Matthew R Williams : -1 , 20205m" ”h" can” and 56W FOY Cam" gfwsfigfifilgwm-GR Escrow Officer: Guile Rock Property: 1497 Keals Avenue, Clovis, O\ 9361 I Settlement 0am: August 28, 2020 Rclerence: SELLER BUYER owl's ‘(El-o‘nz‘-~ “911nm. Duns 0mm ‘W-W-WJEEF';€_:_; w I 160,030.00 ~ -DEPosns > - z 3 |cuAncEs m ' ' g ; > ___ ,conmsfi‘o'fi _~_ 1 L *LOAN REMAINING : 1 Iisw Lonhg ‘ i i-u ,_,____V.T~.< _. ._.., "13M;- ArrounHHI Interest. ' $000 Loan Fcc 3 Tax Service foe Hamd Insurance Taxes Lerner __ s 39L Fcc $35.00 im‘sEfih‘éfi'UEfi- PRORATIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS Tan Proralion (u 57 Scum I0 cmd‘t for c035 MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES Scmces lo ln Franchise Tax Board w: m- lo Homo to Home TED uatural yezend.9is