Preview
n
w
.w
Bradley A. Post, Esq., SBN 127028
Sarah A. Omelas, Esq., SBN 258890
BORTON PETRINI, LLP
201 Needham Street
Modesto, California 95354
Tel: (209) 576-1701
Fax: (209) 527-9753
Attorneysfor Defendants
Great Valley Realtors, Inc.,
Troy Wright and Audrey Goesch
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
10
BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL, Case No. 2018041
11
Plaintiffs, SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
12 UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN
v. SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS, GREAT
13 VALLEY REALTORS INC.’S, AUDREY
GREAT VALLEY REALTORS INC, AUDREY GOESCH’S AND TROY WRIGHT’S
14 GOESCH; TROY WRIGHT, JASON WRIGHT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY
GINA WRIGHT, CENTURY 21 M&M AND JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION
15 ASSOCIATES, TAMI GOSSELIN, DAMON
SALINAS, DUNCAN LYONS, AMERISPEC DATE : 05/01/18
16 INSPECTION SERVICES and DOES 1 through TIME : 8:30 am.
50, inclusive, DEPT. :24
17 Trial Date: 06/12/1 8
Defendants.
18
19 AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS
20
21 Defendants, GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC, AUDREY GOESCH and TROY WRIGHT,
22 hereby submits this Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of their Motion for
23 Summary Judgment/ Adjudication.
24 ISSUE 1:
25
DEFENDANTS, GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC., TROY WRIGHT AND AUDREY
26
GOESCH ARE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF
ACTION (CONCEALMENT) BECAUSE THE MOVING DEFENDANTS DID NOT CONCEAL
27 THE EXISTENCE OF MOLD 0R OTHERWISE HARMFUL MATERIALS IN THE
PROPERTY
28
22 \7085
h:\6
| l
und
l‘-.msj\mat I
facts re
msj,docx STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
Moving Parties’ Undisputed Material Facts and Opposing Party’s Response and Supporting
Supporting Evidence: Evidence:
1. During October 2013, the Plaintiffs entered into
a contractual relationship with their realtor, TAMI
GOSSELIN, for the purpose of finding and
purchasing a residential property in Modesto,
California.
(Amended Complaint at 11 11, attached as Exhibit
B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment).
2. The Plaintiffs hired TAMI GOSSELIN, a realtor
10
with CENTURY 21 M&M to assist them in
finding their new home.
11
(Amended Complaint at 11 11, attached as Exhibit
12 B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment).
13
14
3. On November 26, 201 3, the Plaintiffs made an
15 offer to purchase a single family home located at
2440 Kaslin Drive, Modesto, California
16 (“property”). This offer was accepted by the
sellers of the property.
17
(Amended Complaint at 1] 16, attached as Exhibit
18
B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’
19 Motion for Summary Judgment, California
Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow
20 Instructions attached as Exhibit D to the Evidence
in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary
21
Judgment).
22
23 4. The sellers ofthe property were JASON
WRIGHT and GINA WRIGHT. JASON
24 WRIGHT and GINA WRIGHT hired AUDREY
25
GOESCH of GREAT VALLEY REALTORS,
INC. to assist them in the sale of their home.
26
(Amended Complaint at fl 14, attached as Exhibit
27 B t0 the Evidence in Support of Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment, California
28
h:\6l22]\7085
l\msj\mat und 2
facts re
msjdocx
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1 Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow
Instructions attached as Exhibit D to the Evidence
2 in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment).
5. The Plaintiffs allege that the existence of the
5 presence of harmful and dangerous mold, mildew,
and/or fungi in the property was concealed from
them, and that this fact was conceal “specifically,
but not limited to, painting over the infected areas
7
of the residence.”
(Amended Complaint at 1H]36-38, attached as
9 Exhibit B to the Evidence in Support of
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment).
1 0
1 1
6. TROY WRIGHT, AUDREY GOESCH and
12 GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC. were not
aware of the presence of mold in the property prior
13
to the close of escrow.
14
(Fact established as a matter of law. See
15 Declaration of Sarah Omelas. Request for
Admissions to Plaintiff Kim Bunnell, Set One
16 attached as Exhibit F to the Evidence in Support
of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment;
17 Admissions Bunnell,
Request for to Plaintiff Bill
18
Set One attached as Exhibit G to the Evidence in
Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary
19 Judgment; Defendants’ Notice of Motion and for
Order that Matters and Genuineness of Documents
20 in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted
and Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as
21
Exhibit H to the Evidence in Support of
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment;
22
Order Regarding Defendants’ Motion for Order
23 that Matters and Genuineness of Documents in
Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and
24 Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as Exhibit
I to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’
25 of Entry of
Motion for Summary Judgment; Notice
Order regarding Defendants’ Motion for Order that
26
Matters and Genuineness of Documents in Request
27 for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and
Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as Exhibit
28 J to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’
22 H7085
h:\6
l
l\msj\mat und 3
““5'°
msj .docx
STATEMENT 0F UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1 Motion for Summary Judgment; Declaration of
Troy Wright at 1H] 7, 10 attached as Exhibit E to
2 the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment)
7. GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC.,
AUDREY GOESCH and TROY WRIGHT did not
6 paint anywhere at the property prior to the close of
CSCI‘OW.
7
(Fact established as a matter of law. See
Declaration of Sarah Omelas. Request for
Admissions to Plaintiff Kim Bunnell, Set One
9
attached as Exhibit F to the Evidence in Support
10 of Defendants‘ Motion for Summary Judgment;
Request for Admissions to Plaintiff Bill Bunnell,
11 Set One attached as Exhibit G to the Evidence in
Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary
I2
Judgment; Defendants’ Notice of Motion and for
1 3
Order that Matters and Genuineness of Documents
in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted
14 and Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as
Exhibit H to the Evidence in Support of
15 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment;
Order Regarding Defendants’ Motion for Order
16
that Matters and Genuineness of Documents in
17 Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and
Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as Exhibit
l8 I to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment; Notice of Entry of
19 Order regarding Defendants’ Motion for Order that
Matters and Genuineness of Documents in Request
20
for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and
21 Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as Exhibit
J to the Evidence in Support 0f Defendants’
22 Motion for Summary Judgment; Deposition of Bill
Bunnell, p. 162, l.5-25, p. 163, l. 1-13 attached as
23 Exhibit L to the Evidence in Suppon of
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,
24
Declaration of Troy Wright at 1111 7-9 attached as
25 Exhibit E to the Evidence in Support of
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment).
26
27
28
|1:\6l221\7085
l\msj\mal und 4
““5 ‘°
msj.docx
STATEMENT 0F UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1 8. GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC.,
AUDREY GOESCH and TROY WRIGHT did not
2 instruct anyone else to paint anywhere in the
property or otherwise cover up mold.
4 (Fact established as a matter of law. See
Declaration of Sarah Omelas. Request for
5 Admissions to Plaintiff Kim Bunnell, Set One
attached as Exhibit F to the Evidence in Support
of Defendants’ Motion for Summaly Judgment;
Request for Admissions to Plaintiff Bill Bunnell,
Set One attached as Exhibit G to the Evidence in
Support of Defendants’
\OOONO
Motion for Summary
Judgment; Defendants’ Notice of Motion and for
Order that Matters and Genuineness of Documents
in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted
10
and Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as
Exhibit H to the Evidence in Support of
11
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment;
12 Order Regarding Defendants’ Motion for Order
that Matters and Genuineness of Documents in
13 Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and
Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as Exhibit
14
I to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’
1 5
Motion for Summary Judgment; Notice of Entry of
Order regarding Defendants’ Motion for Order that
16 Matters and Genuineness of Documents in Request
for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and
17 Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as Exhibit
J to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’
18
Motion for Summary Judgment; Declaration of
19 Troy Wright at 1W 7-10 attached as Exhibit E to
the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for
20 Summary Judgment; Deposition of Bill Bunnell p.
160-163 attached as Exhibit L to the Evidence in
21 Suppon of Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment).
22
23
9. GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC.,
24 AUDREY GOESCH and TROY WRIGHT did
nothing to try to hide or conceal dangerous mold,
25 and/or fungi in the property.
mildew,
26
(Declaration of Troy Wright at 11
8-10 attached as
27 Exhibit E to the Evidence in Support of
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment;
28 Deposition of Bill Bunnell p. 160-163 attached as
h:\6
l22!\7085
l\msj\mat und 5
““5 ’9
msj.docx
STATEMENT 0F UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
Exhibit L to the Evidence in Support of
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment).
ISSUE 2:
DEFENDANTS, GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC., TROY WRIGHT AND AUDREY
GOESCH ARE ENTITLED T0 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE FIFTH CAUSE OF
ACTION AS AUDREY GOESCH INSPECTED TI-[E PROPERTY AND DISCLOSED ALL
KNOWN HARMFUL CONDITIONS IN THE PROPERTY
l
Moving
\DOONON
Parties’ Undisputed Material Facts and Opposing Party’s Response and Supporting
Supporting Evidence: Evidence:
9. During October 2013, the Plaintiffs entered into
a contractual relationship with their realtor for the
10
purpose of finding and purchasing a residential
11 property in Modesto, California.
12 (Amended Complaint at fl 11, attached as Exhibit
B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’
13
Motion for Summary Judgment).
14
15 10. The Plaintiffs hired TAMI GOSSELIN, a
realtor with CENTURY 21 M&M to assist them in
16 finding their new home.
17
(Amended Complaint at 11 11, attached as Exhibit
13 B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment).
19
11. On November 26, 2013, the Plaintiffs made an
20 offer to purchase a single family home located at
2440 Kaslin Drive, Modesto, California
21
(“property”). This offer was accepted by the
22 sellers of the property.
23 (Amended Complaint at 11 16, attached as Exhibit
B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’
24 Motion for Summary Judgment, California
Residential Puxchase Agreement and Joint Escrow
25
Instructions attached as Exhibit D to the Evidence
26 in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment).
27
28
h:\6
I22 H7085
l\msj\mal und 6
facts re
msj.docx
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
l 12. The sellers of the property were JASON
WRIGHT and GINA WRIGHT. JASON
2 WRIGHT and GINA WRIGHT hired AUDREY
GOESCH of GREAT VALLEY REALTORS,
INC. to assist them in the sale of théir home.
(Amended Complaint at 1]14, attached as Exhibit
5 B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment, California
Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow
Instructions attached as Exhibit D to the Evidence
in Support of Defendants’
\OOO\10\
Motion for Summary
Judgment).
13. AUDREY GOESCH, as the listing agent, had a
10
duty to conduct a visual inspection of the property.
H AUDREY GOESCH conducted the visual
inspection of the property on December 10, 2013.
12
(Declaration of Troy Wright at fl 11 attached as
13 Exhibit E to the Evidence in Support of
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment;
14
Agent Visual Inspection Disclosure attached as
15 Exhibit K to the Evidence in Support 0f
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment).
16
17
14. The Plaintiffs were provided a copy of the
Agent Visual Disclosure Form prepared by
18
AUDREY GOESCH. The Plaintiffs initialed and
19 signed the Agent Visual Disclosure Form.
20 (Deposition of Bill Bunnell p. 147, 1. 13-25, p.
148, l.1-10 attached as Exhibit L t0 the Evidence
21
in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment; Deposition of Kymberly Bunnell p.
22
128, 1.7-25, p. 129, l. 1-5 attached as Exhibit M to
23 the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment).
24
25
26 15. The Agent Visual Disclosure Form states that
the real estate “agent will not move or look under
27 or behind furniture, pictures, wall hangings 0r
floor coverings. Agent will not look up chimneys
28
|\:\6122l\7085 _
|\msj\mat und 7
m“ '°
msj.docx STATEMENT 0F UNDJSPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1 or into cabinets, or open locked doors.” [Emphasis
added].
(Agent Visual Inspection Disclosure attached as
Exhibit K to the Evidence in Support of
4 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment).
16. The Agent Visual Disclosure Form states
“[r]egardless of what the Agent’s Inspection
reveals, or what disclosures are made by sellers,
7
California Law specifies that a buyer has a duty to
8 exercise reasonable care to protect himself or
herself.”
(Agent Visual Inspection Disclosure attached as
O
1
Exhibit K to the Evidence in Support of
11
Defendants” Motion for Summary Judgment).
12
17. Escrow closed on February 12, 2014.
13
(Amended Complaint at 1118, attached as Exhibit
14
B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’
15 Motion for Summary Judgment).
16
18. On February 20, 2014, mold was discovered by
17
the Plaintiff Kim Bunnell’s aunt when she was
cleaning out the kitchen cabinets.
18
19 (Amended Complaint at 1T18, attached as Exhibit
B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’
20 Motion for Summary Judgment; Deposition of Bill
Bunnell p.66, 1.7-16 attached as Exhibit L to the
21
Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for
22 Summary Judgment).
23
19. Mold could only be observed on the back wall
24 inside the cabinet, and on the wall behind a cabinet
drawer when a cabinet drawer was completely
25
removed. Additional mold was observed when the
26 cabinet was removed from the wall, and drywall
removed.
27
28
h:\61221\7085
l\msj\mal und 8
““5 '°
Insj.docx
STATEMENT 0F UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1 (Deposition ofBill Bunnell p. 148, l.21-25, p.
149, 1. 1attached as Exhibit L to the Evidence in
2 Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment; Deposition of Kymberly Bunnell p.
124, l. 19-25,p. 125, l. 1-3,p. 126,1. 11-19
4 attached as Exhibit M to the Evidence in Support
of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment;
5 Amended Complaint at 11 18, attached as Exhibit B
to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion
6 for Summary Judgment).
7
8 20. The Plaintiffs hired DUNCAN LYONS of
AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES to
9 conduct an inspection of the property on December
13, 2013.
1 O
(Amerispec Inspection Services Inspection Report
11
attached as Exhibit N to the Evidence in Support
12 0f Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment).
13
21. No mold was discovered during the property
1 4
inspection in the kitchen by DUNCAN LYONS
1 5 and/or AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES.
16 (Amerispec Inspection Services Inspection Report
attached as Exhibit N, pages 21-23, to the
17 Motion for
Evidence in Support of Defendants’
Summary Judgment).
18
19
22. AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES
20 prepared an Inspection Report that summarized its
findings, and the Plaintiffs were provided a copy
21
ofthis Report.
22
(Amerispec Inspection Services Inspection Report
23 attached as Exhibit N to the Evidence in Support
0f Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment).
24
25
23. Included in the AMERISPEC INSPECTION
26 SERVICES Inspection Report was a
“Walkthrough Checklist” provided to the
27 Plaintiffs. AMERISPEC INSPECTION
SERVICES urged the Plaintiffs to check, among
28
M6122 [\7085
l\msj\mal uud 9
““5'e
msj.docx
STATEMENT 0F UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1 other things, “countertops and interiors of all
drawers, cabinets and closets.”
(Amerispec Inspection Services Inspection Report
attached as Exhibit N, Page 38, to the Evidence in
4 Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment).
6 of the
24. The Plaintiffs did not check the interiors
kitchen cabinets prior to the close of escrow.
7
8 (Deposition 0f Bill Bunnell p. 151, l. 17-25, p.
152, l. 1-25, p. 153, l. 1-14 attached as Exhibit L
9 to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment).
10
11
25. TROY WRIGHT, AUDREY GOESCH and
12 GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC. were not
aware of the presence of mold in the property prior
13 to the close of escrow.
14
(Fact established as a matter of law. See
15 Declaration of Sarah Ornelas. Request for
Admissions to Plaintiff Kim Bunnell, Set One
16 attached as Exhibit F to the Evidence in Support
of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment;
17 Admissions Bunnell,
Request for to Plaintiff Bill
18
Set One attached as Exhibit G to the Evidence in
Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary
19 Judgment; Defendants’ Notice of Motion and for
Order that Matters and Genuineness of Documents
20 in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted
and Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as
21
Exhibit H to the Evidence in Support of
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment;
22
Order Regarding Defendants’ Motion for Order
23 that Matters and Genuineness of Documents in
Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and
24 Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as Exhibit
I t0 the Evidence in Support of Defendants’
25
Motion for Summary Judgment; Notice of Entry of
Order regarding Defendants’ Motion for Order that
26
Matters and Genuineness of Documents in Request
27 for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and
Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as Exhibit
28 J to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’
22 H7085
|I:\6l
l\msj\mat und 10
(""5”
msj.docx
STATEMENT 0F UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1 Motion for Summary Judgment; and Declaration
of Troy Wright at 1H] 7, 10 attached as Exhibit E
2 to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment.
26. GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC,
5 AUDREY GOESCH and TROY WRIGHT did not
paint anywhere at the property prior to the close of
escrow.
(Declaration of Sarah Omelas; Deposition of Bill
8 Bunnell, p. 162, l.5-25, p. 163, l.1-13 attached as
Exhibit L to the Evidence in Support of
9 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,
Declaration of Troy Wright at 1W 7-9 attached as
Exhibit E to the Evidence in Support of
1 1
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment;
Deposition of Kymberly Bunnell p. 148, 1. 4-19
12 attached as Exhibit M to the Evidence in Support
of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment).
27. GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC.,
15 AUDREY GOESCH and TROY WRIGHT did not
instruct anyone else to paint anywhere in the
16 property or otherwise cover up mold.
17
(Declaration of Troy Wright at 1N 7-10 attached as
Exhibit E to the Evidence in Support of
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment;
19 Declaration of Sarah Omelas; Deposition of Bill
Bunnell p. 160-163 attached as Exhibit L to the
20 Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment).
28. GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC.,
23 AUDREY GOESCH and TROY WRIGHT did
nothing to try to hide or conceal dangerous mold,
24 mildew, and/or fungi in the property.
26 (Declaration of Troy Wright at 11 8-10 attached as
Exhibit E to the Evidence in Support of
27 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment;
Deposition 0f Bill Bunnell p. 160-163 attached as
28
122
|1:\6 H7085
l\msj\mm und 1 1
‘3‘“ “E
msjdocx
STATEMENT 0F UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
Exhibit L to the Evidence in Support of
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment).
29. On November 26, 2013, the Plaintiffs signed a
“Disclosure Regarding Real Estate Agency
Relationship.” Pursuant to this disclosure the
Plaintiffs were informed that the Seller’s Agent
(AUDREY GOESCH) acted “as the agent for the
Seller only” and that there was no fiduciary duty
between AUDREY GOESCH and the Plaintiffs.
(Disclosure Regarding Real Estate Agency
Relationship attached as Exhibit O to the
Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment).
10
ISSUE THREE:
11
DEFENDANTS, GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC., TROY WRIGHT AND AUDREY
12 GOESCH ARE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE FIFTH CAUSE OF
ACTION BECAUSE THIS COUNT IS BARED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
l3
30. On December 15, 2015, the Plaintiffs
14
commenced this suit against JASON WRIGHT,
15 GINA WRIGHT, and AMERISPEC only for (1)
Breach of Contract (2) Breach of Covenant of
16 Good Faith and Fair Dealing (3) Concealment (4)
Breach of Duty to Disclose and (5) Negligence.
17
(Plaintiff’s Complaint attached as Exhibit A to the
18
Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for
19 Summary Judgment).
20
3 1.On April 4, 2016, the Plaintiffs amended their
21
Complaint and added TAMI GOSSLIN, M&M
22
AND ASSOCIATES, DAMON SALINAS,
DUNCAN LYONS, GREAT VALLEY
23 REALTORS, INC., AUDREY GOESCH and
TROY WRIGHT.
24
(Plaintiffs Amended Complaint attached as
25
Exhibit B to the Evidence in Support of
26 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment).
27
28
h:\6l22|\7085
und
l\lnsj\mal 12
facts re
msj.docx STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
32. Escrow closed and the deed was recorded on
February 12, 2014.
(Amended Complaint at1[ 18, attached as Exhibit
B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment).
33. The Plaintiffs took possession of the property
on February 20, 2014.
(Amended Complaint at 1] 18, attached as Exhibit
B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment).
10 Dated: February fl, 20 1 8 BORTON PETRIN ,
11
12
ByQ ah.
endam‘s,
13 ltors, Inc., Troy Wright and
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
h:\6l 22
\7085
l
l\msj\mal Imd 13
facts re
msj.docx
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
PROOF OF SERVICE (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1013a)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
Iam employed in the County of Stanislaus, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a
party to the within action; my business address isBorton Petrini, LLP, 201 Needham Street, Modesto,
California 95354.
On February OI , 2018, I served the foregoing document described as SEPARATE
STATEMENT 0F UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS,
GREAT VALLEY REALTORS INC.’S, AUDREY GOESCH’S AND TROY WRIGHT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION on the other parties in this action by
placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing
list.
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
1y BY MAIL: As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the finn‘s practice of collection and
10 processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice
the envelope would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon
11 fully prepaid at Modesto, California in the ordinary course 0f business.
r“
12 BY FACSIMILE: I caused each document to be delivered by electronic facsimile to the listed
above. The facsimile machine I used complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 2.301 and
13 no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.306.
{a
14 BY OVERNIGHT COURIER SERVICE: I caused each envelope with posfage fully prepaid
to be sent by overnight.
15
3N
BY PERSONAL SERVICE: Pursuant to C.C.P. Section 101 1, I caused to be delivered such
16 envelope by hand t0 the offices of the addressee(s) listed on the attached mailing list.
17 r BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and
California Rules of Court, Rule 2.251, service shall be completed Via electronic transmission to
18 the attached person(s) transmission of such is at the e-mail address(es) indicated on the attached
mailing list.
19
r FEDERAL: I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at
20 whose direction the service was made.
21 Ideclare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true
and correct.
22
Executed on Februaryq , 2018, at Modesto, California.
23
24
25
Marandavameu
Type or Print Name ignature
MLL
26
27
28
22 H7085
h:\6
l
l\msj\mal und l4
facts re
msj.docx
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF: BILL & KIM BUNNELL
2 Mina L. Ramirez, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MINA L. RAMIREZ
3 1165 Scenic Drive, Suite C-1
Modesto, California 95350
4 Tel: (209) 491-0199
Fax: (209) 575-9497
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS/CROSS-DEFENDANTSz DUNCAN LYONS
6 & AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES
7 I.Hooshie Broomand, Esq
NEWMAN & BROOMAND, LLP
8 2360 E. Bidwell Street, #100
Folsom, CA 95630
9 Tel.: (916) 932-0397
10 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS/CROSS-DEFENDANTS: JASON WRIGHT
& GINA WRIGHT
11
Joseph L. Wright, Esq.
12 LAW OFFICES 0F NATHAN I NUTTING
83 South Steward Street, Suite 102
13 Sonora, CA 95370
Tel.: (209) 536-4893
14
ATTORNEYS FOR CROSS-COMPLAINANTS: PREMIER VALLEY, INC. dba
15 CENTURY 21 M&M and ASSOCIATES and TAMI GOSSELIN
16 Cory B. Chartrand, Esq.
TRIEBSCH & FRAMPTON, APC
17 P.O. Box 709
Turlock, California 95381
18 Tel.: (209) 667-2300
Fax: (209) 667-2357
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
l1:\61221\7085
l\msj\mal und 15
fa?“ 'e
mSJ‘docx
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
Preview
n w .w Bradley A. Post, Esq., SBN 127028 Sarah A. Omelas, Esq., SBN 258890 BORTON PETRINI, LLP 201 Needham Street Modesto, California 95354 Tel: (209) 576-1701 Fax: (209) 527-9753 Attorneysfor Defendants Great Valley Realtors, Inc., Troy Wright and Audrey Goesch SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 10 BILL BUNNELL and KIM BUNNELL, Case No. 2018041 11 Plaintiffs, SEPARATE STATEMENT OF 12 UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN v. SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS, GREAT 13 VALLEY REALTORS INC.’S, AUDREY GREAT VALLEY REALTORS INC, AUDREY GOESCH’S AND TROY WRIGHT’S 14 GOESCH; TROY WRIGHT, JASON WRIGHT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY GINA WRIGHT, CENTURY 21 M&M AND JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION 15 ASSOCIATES, TAMI GOSSELIN, DAMON SALINAS, DUNCAN LYONS, AMERISPEC DATE : 05/01/18 16 INSPECTION SERVICES and DOES 1 through TIME : 8:30 am. 50, inclusive, DEPT. :24 17 Trial Date: 06/12/1 8 Defendants. 18 19 AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS 20 21 Defendants, GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC, AUDREY GOESCH and TROY WRIGHT, 22 hereby submits this Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of their Motion for 23 Summary Judgment/ Adjudication. 24 ISSUE 1: 25 DEFENDANTS, GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC., TROY WRIGHT AND AUDREY 26 GOESCH ARE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (CONCEALMENT) BECAUSE THE MOVING DEFENDANTS DID NOT CONCEAL 27 THE EXISTENCE OF MOLD 0R OTHERWISE HARMFUL MATERIALS IN THE PROPERTY 28 22 \7085 h:\6 | l und l‘-.msj\mat I facts re msj,docx STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS Moving Parties’ Undisputed Material Facts and Opposing Party’s Response and Supporting Supporting Evidence: Evidence: 1. During October 2013, the Plaintiffs entered into a contractual relationship with their realtor, TAMI GOSSELIN, for the purpose of finding and purchasing a residential property in Modesto, California. (Amended Complaint at 11 11, attached as Exhibit B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 2. The Plaintiffs hired TAMI GOSSELIN, a realtor 10 with CENTURY 21 M&M to assist them in finding their new home. 11 (Amended Complaint at 11 11, attached as Exhibit 12 B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 13 14 3. On November 26, 201 3, the Plaintiffs made an 15 offer to purchase a single family home located at 2440 Kaslin Drive, Modesto, California 16 (“property”). This offer was accepted by the sellers of the property. 17 (Amended Complaint at 1] 16, attached as Exhibit 18 B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ 19 Motion for Summary Judgment, California Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow 20 Instructions attached as Exhibit D to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary 21 Judgment). 22 23 4. The sellers ofthe property were JASON WRIGHT and GINA WRIGHT. JASON 24 WRIGHT and GINA WRIGHT hired AUDREY 25 GOESCH of GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC. to assist them in the sale of their home. 26 (Amended Complaint at fl 14, attached as Exhibit 27 B t0 the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, California 28 h:\6l22]\7085 l\msj\mat und 2 facts re msjdocx STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 1 Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions attached as Exhibit D to the Evidence 2 in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 5. The Plaintiffs allege that the existence of the 5 presence of harmful and dangerous mold, mildew, and/or fungi in the property was concealed from them, and that this fact was conceal “specifically, but not limited to, painting over the infected areas 7 of the residence.” (Amended Complaint at 1H]36-38, attached as 9 Exhibit B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 1 0 1 1 6. TROY WRIGHT, AUDREY GOESCH and 12 GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC. were not aware of the presence of mold in the property prior 13 to the close of escrow. 14 (Fact established as a matter of law. See 15 Declaration of Sarah Omelas. Request for Admissions to Plaintiff Kim Bunnell, Set One 16 attached as Exhibit F to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; 17 Admissions Bunnell, Request for to Plaintiff Bill 18 Set One attached as Exhibit G to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary 19 Judgment; Defendants’ Notice of Motion and for Order that Matters and Genuineness of Documents 20 in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as 21 Exhibit H to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; 22 Order Regarding Defendants’ Motion for Order 23 that Matters and Genuineness of Documents in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and 24 Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as Exhibit I to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ 25 of Entry of Motion for Summary Judgment; Notice Order regarding Defendants’ Motion for Order that 26 Matters and Genuineness of Documents in Request 27 for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as Exhibit 28 J to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ 22 H7085 h:\6 l l\msj\mat und 3 ““5'° msj .docx STATEMENT 0F UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 1 Motion for Summary Judgment; Declaration of Troy Wright at 1H] 7, 10 attached as Exhibit E to 2 the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment) 7. GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC., AUDREY GOESCH and TROY WRIGHT did not 6 paint anywhere at the property prior to the close of CSCI‘OW. 7 (Fact established as a matter of law. See Declaration of Sarah Omelas. Request for Admissions to Plaintiff Kim Bunnell, Set One 9 attached as Exhibit F to the Evidence in Support 10 of Defendants‘ Motion for Summary Judgment; Request for Admissions to Plaintiff Bill Bunnell, 11 Set One attached as Exhibit G to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary I2 Judgment; Defendants’ Notice of Motion and for 1 3 Order that Matters and Genuineness of Documents in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted 14 and Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as Exhibit H to the Evidence in Support of 15 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Order Regarding Defendants’ Motion for Order 16 that Matters and Genuineness of Documents in 17 Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as Exhibit l8 I to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Notice of Entry of 19 Order regarding Defendants’ Motion for Order that Matters and Genuineness of Documents in Request 20 for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and 21 Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as Exhibit J to the Evidence in Support 0f Defendants’ 22 Motion for Summary Judgment; Deposition of Bill Bunnell, p. 162, l.5-25, p. 163, l. 1-13 attached as 23 Exhibit L to the Evidence in Suppon of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, 24 Declaration of Troy Wright at 1111 7-9 attached as 25 Exhibit E to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 26 27 28 |1:\6l221\7085 l\msj\mal und 4 ““5 ‘° msj.docx STATEMENT 0F UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 1 8. GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC., AUDREY GOESCH and TROY WRIGHT did not 2 instruct anyone else to paint anywhere in the property or otherwise cover up mold. 4 (Fact established as a matter of law. See Declaration of Sarah Omelas. Request for 5 Admissions to Plaintiff Kim Bunnell, Set One attached as Exhibit F to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summaly Judgment; Request for Admissions to Plaintiff Bill Bunnell, Set One attached as Exhibit G to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ \OOONO Motion for Summary Judgment; Defendants’ Notice of Motion and for Order that Matters and Genuineness of Documents in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted 10 and Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as Exhibit H to the Evidence in Support of 11 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; 12 Order Regarding Defendants’ Motion for Order that Matters and Genuineness of Documents in 13 Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as Exhibit 14 I to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ 1 5 Motion for Summary Judgment; Notice of Entry of Order regarding Defendants’ Motion for Order that 16 Matters and Genuineness of Documents in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and 17 Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as Exhibit J to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ 18 Motion for Summary Judgment; Declaration of 19 Troy Wright at 1W 7-10 attached as Exhibit E to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for 20 Summary Judgment; Deposition of Bill Bunnell p. 160-163 attached as Exhibit L to the Evidence in 21 Suppon of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 22 23 9. GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC., 24 AUDREY GOESCH and TROY WRIGHT did nothing to try to hide or conceal dangerous mold, 25 and/or fungi in the property. mildew, 26 (Declaration of Troy Wright at 11 8-10 attached as 27 Exhibit E to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; 28 Deposition of Bill Bunnell p. 160-163 attached as h:\6 l22!\7085 l\msj\mat und 5 ““5 ’9 msj.docx STATEMENT 0F UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS Exhibit L to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). ISSUE 2: DEFENDANTS, GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC., TROY WRIGHT AND AUDREY GOESCH ARE ENTITLED T0 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AS AUDREY GOESCH INSPECTED TI-[E PROPERTY AND DISCLOSED ALL KNOWN HARMFUL CONDITIONS IN THE PROPERTY l Moving \DOONON Parties’ Undisputed Material Facts and Opposing Party’s Response and Supporting Supporting Evidence: Evidence: 9. During October 2013, the Plaintiffs entered into a contractual relationship with their realtor for the 10 purpose of finding and purchasing a residential 11 property in Modesto, California. 12 (Amended Complaint at fl 11, attached as Exhibit B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ 13 Motion for Summary Judgment). 14 15 10. The Plaintiffs hired TAMI GOSSELIN, a realtor with CENTURY 21 M&M to assist them in 16 finding their new home. 17 (Amended Complaint at 11 11, attached as Exhibit 13 B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 19 11. On November 26, 2013, the Plaintiffs made an 20 offer to purchase a single family home located at 2440 Kaslin Drive, Modesto, California 21 (“property”). This offer was accepted by the 22 sellers of the property. 23 (Amended Complaint at 11 16, attached as Exhibit B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ 24 Motion for Summary Judgment, California Residential Puxchase Agreement and Joint Escrow 25 Instructions attached as Exhibit D to the Evidence 26 in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 27 28 h:\6 I22 H7085 l\msj\mal und 6 facts re msj.docx STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS l 12. The sellers of the property were JASON WRIGHT and GINA WRIGHT. JASON 2 WRIGHT and GINA WRIGHT hired AUDREY GOESCH of GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC. to assist them in the sale of théir home. (Amended Complaint at 1]14, attached as Exhibit 5 B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, California Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions attached as Exhibit D to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ \OOO\10\ Motion for Summary Judgment). 13. AUDREY GOESCH, as the listing agent, had a 10 duty to conduct a visual inspection of the property. H AUDREY GOESCH conducted the visual inspection of the property on December 10, 2013. 12 (Declaration of Troy Wright at fl 11 attached as 13 Exhibit E to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; 14 Agent Visual Inspection Disclosure attached as 15 Exhibit K to the Evidence in Support 0f Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 16 17 14. The Plaintiffs were provided a copy of the Agent Visual Disclosure Form prepared by 18 AUDREY GOESCH. The Plaintiffs initialed and 19 signed the Agent Visual Disclosure Form. 20 (Deposition of Bill Bunnell p. 147, 1. 13-25, p. 148, l.1-10 attached as Exhibit L t0 the Evidence 21 in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Deposition of Kymberly Bunnell p. 22 128, 1.7-25, p. 129, l. 1-5 attached as Exhibit M to 23 the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 24 25 26 15. The Agent Visual Disclosure Form states that the real estate “agent will not move or look under 27 or behind furniture, pictures, wall hangings 0r floor coverings. Agent will not look up chimneys 28 |\:\6122l\7085 _ |\msj\mat und 7 m“ '° msj.docx STATEMENT 0F UNDJSPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 1 or into cabinets, or open locked doors.” [Emphasis added]. (Agent Visual Inspection Disclosure attached as Exhibit K to the Evidence in Support of 4 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 16. The Agent Visual Disclosure Form states “[r]egardless of what the Agent’s Inspection reveals, or what disclosures are made by sellers, 7 California Law specifies that a buyer has a duty to 8 exercise reasonable care to protect himself or herself.” (Agent Visual Inspection Disclosure attached as O 1 Exhibit K to the Evidence in Support of 11 Defendants” Motion for Summary Judgment). 12 17. Escrow closed on February 12, 2014. 13 (Amended Complaint at 1118, attached as Exhibit 14 B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ 15 Motion for Summary Judgment). 16 18. On February 20, 2014, mold was discovered by 17 the Plaintiff Kim Bunnell’s aunt when she was cleaning out the kitchen cabinets. 18 19 (Amended Complaint at 1T18, attached as Exhibit B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ 20 Motion for Summary Judgment; Deposition of Bill Bunnell p.66, 1.7-16 attached as Exhibit L to the 21 Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for 22 Summary Judgment). 23 19. Mold could only be observed on the back wall 24 inside the cabinet, and on the wall behind a cabinet drawer when a cabinet drawer was completely 25 removed. Additional mold was observed when the 26 cabinet was removed from the wall, and drywall removed. 27 28 h:\61221\7085 l\msj\mal und 8 ““5 '° Insj.docx STATEMENT 0F UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 1 (Deposition ofBill Bunnell p. 148, l.21-25, p. 149, 1. 1attached as Exhibit L to the Evidence in 2 Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Deposition of Kymberly Bunnell p. 124, l. 19-25,p. 125, l. 1-3,p. 126,1. 11-19 4 attached as Exhibit M to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; 5 Amended Complaint at 11 18, attached as Exhibit B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion 6 for Summary Judgment). 7 8 20. The Plaintiffs hired DUNCAN LYONS of AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES to 9 conduct an inspection of the property on December 13, 2013. 1 O (Amerispec Inspection Services Inspection Report 11 attached as Exhibit N to the Evidence in Support 12 0f Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 13 21. No mold was discovered during the property 1 4 inspection in the kitchen by DUNCAN LYONS 1 5 and/or AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES. 16 (Amerispec Inspection Services Inspection Report attached as Exhibit N, pages 21-23, to the 17 Motion for Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Summary Judgment). 18 19 22. AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES 20 prepared an Inspection Report that summarized its findings, and the Plaintiffs were provided a copy 21 ofthis Report. 22 (Amerispec Inspection Services Inspection Report 23 attached as Exhibit N to the Evidence in Support 0f Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 24 25 23. Included in the AMERISPEC INSPECTION 26 SERVICES Inspection Report was a “Walkthrough Checklist” provided to the 27 Plaintiffs. AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES urged the Plaintiffs to check, among 28 M6122 [\7085 l\msj\mal uud 9 ““5'e msj.docx STATEMENT 0F UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 1 other things, “countertops and interiors of all drawers, cabinets and closets.” (Amerispec Inspection Services Inspection Report attached as Exhibit N, Page 38, to the Evidence in 4 Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 6 of the 24. The Plaintiffs did not check the interiors kitchen cabinets prior to the close of escrow. 7 8 (Deposition 0f Bill Bunnell p. 151, l. 17-25, p. 152, l. 1-25, p. 153, l. 1-14 attached as Exhibit L 9 to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 10 11 25. TROY WRIGHT, AUDREY GOESCH and 12 GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC. were not aware of the presence of mold in the property prior 13 to the close of escrow. 14 (Fact established as a matter of law. See 15 Declaration of Sarah Ornelas. Request for Admissions to Plaintiff Kim Bunnell, Set One 16 attached as Exhibit F to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; 17 Admissions Bunnell, Request for to Plaintiff Bill 18 Set One attached as Exhibit G to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary 19 Judgment; Defendants’ Notice of Motion and for Order that Matters and Genuineness of Documents 20 in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as 21 Exhibit H to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; 22 Order Regarding Defendants’ Motion for Order 23 that Matters and Genuineness of Documents in Request for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and 24 Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as Exhibit I t0 the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ 25 Motion for Summary Judgment; Notice of Entry of Order regarding Defendants’ Motion for Order that 26 Matters and Genuineness of Documents in Request 27 for Admissions be Deemed Admitted and Imposing Monetary Sanctions attached as Exhibit 28 J to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ 22 H7085 |I:\6l l\msj\mat und 10 (""5” msj.docx STATEMENT 0F UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 1 Motion for Summary Judgment; and Declaration of Troy Wright at 1H] 7, 10 attached as Exhibit E 2 to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. 26. GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC, 5 AUDREY GOESCH and TROY WRIGHT did not paint anywhere at the property prior to the close of escrow. (Declaration of Sarah Omelas; Deposition of Bill 8 Bunnell, p. 162, l.5-25, p. 163, l.1-13 attached as Exhibit L to the Evidence in Support of 9 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Declaration of Troy Wright at 1W 7-9 attached as Exhibit E to the Evidence in Support of 1 1 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Deposition of Kymberly Bunnell p. 148, 1. 4-19 12 attached as Exhibit M to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 27. GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC., 15 AUDREY GOESCH and TROY WRIGHT did not instruct anyone else to paint anywhere in the 16 property or otherwise cover up mold. 17 (Declaration of Troy Wright at 1N 7-10 attached as Exhibit E to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; 19 Declaration of Sarah Omelas; Deposition of Bill Bunnell p. 160-163 attached as Exhibit L to the 20 Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 28. GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC., 23 AUDREY GOESCH and TROY WRIGHT did nothing to try to hide or conceal dangerous mold, 24 mildew, and/or fungi in the property. 26 (Declaration of Troy Wright at 11 8-10 attached as Exhibit E to the Evidence in Support of 27 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Deposition 0f Bill Bunnell p. 160-163 attached as 28 122 |1:\6 H7085 l\msj\mm und 1 1 ‘3‘“ “E msjdocx STATEMENT 0F UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS Exhibit L to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 29. On November 26, 2013, the Plaintiffs signed a “Disclosure Regarding Real Estate Agency Relationship.” Pursuant to this disclosure the Plaintiffs were informed that the Seller’s Agent (AUDREY GOESCH) acted “as the agent for the Seller only” and that there was no fiduciary duty between AUDREY GOESCH and the Plaintiffs. (Disclosure Regarding Real Estate Agency Relationship attached as Exhibit O to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 10 ISSUE THREE: 11 DEFENDANTS, GREAT VALLEY REALTORS, INC., TROY WRIGHT AND AUDREY 12 GOESCH ARE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE THIS COUNT IS BARED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS l3 30. On December 15, 2015, the Plaintiffs 14 commenced this suit against JASON WRIGHT, 15 GINA WRIGHT, and AMERISPEC only for (1) Breach of Contract (2) Breach of Covenant of 16 Good Faith and Fair Dealing (3) Concealment (4) Breach of Duty to Disclose and (5) Negligence. 17 (Plaintiff’s Complaint attached as Exhibit A to the 18 Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for 19 Summary Judgment). 20 3 1.On April 4, 2016, the Plaintiffs amended their 21 Complaint and added TAMI GOSSLIN, M&M 22 AND ASSOCIATES, DAMON SALINAS, DUNCAN LYONS, GREAT VALLEY 23 REALTORS, INC., AUDREY GOESCH and TROY WRIGHT. 24 (Plaintiffs Amended Complaint attached as 25 Exhibit B to the Evidence in Support of 26 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 27 28 h:\6l22|\7085 und l\lnsj\mal 12 facts re msj.docx STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 32. Escrow closed and the deed was recorded on February 12, 2014. (Amended Complaint at1[ 18, attached as Exhibit B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 33. The Plaintiffs took possession of the property on February 20, 2014. (Amended Complaint at 1] 18, attached as Exhibit B to the Evidence in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment). 10 Dated: February fl, 20 1 8 BORTON PETRIN , 11 12 ByQ ah. endam‘s, 13 ltors, Inc., Troy Wright and 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 h:\6l 22 \7085 l l\msj\mal Imd 13 facts re msj.docx STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS PROOF OF SERVICE (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1013a) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS Iam employed in the County of Stanislaus, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address isBorton Petrini, LLP, 201 Needham Street, Modesto, California 95354. On February OI , 2018, I served the foregoing document described as SEPARATE STATEMENT 0F UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS, GREAT VALLEY REALTORS INC.’S, AUDREY GOESCH’S AND TROY WRIGHT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION on the other parties in this action by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing list. SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 1y BY MAIL: As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the finn‘s practice of collection and 10 processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice the envelope would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon 11 fully prepaid at Modesto, California in the ordinary course 0f business. r“ 12 BY FACSIMILE: I caused each document to be delivered by electronic facsimile to the listed above. The facsimile machine I used complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 2.301 and 13 no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.306. {a 14 BY OVERNIGHT COURIER SERVICE: I caused each envelope with posfage fully prepaid to be sent by overnight. 15 3N BY PERSONAL SERVICE: Pursuant to C.C.P. Section 101 1, I caused to be delivered such 16 envelope by hand t0 the offices of the addressee(s) listed on the attached mailing list. 17 r BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.251, service shall be completed Via electronic transmission to 18 the attached person(s) transmission of such is at the e-mail address(es) indicated on the attached mailing list. 19 r FEDERAL: I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at 20 whose direction the service was made. 21 Ideclare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 22 Executed on Februaryq , 2018, at Modesto, California. 23 24 25 Marandavameu Type or Print Name ignature MLL 26 27 28 22 H7085 h:\6 l l\msj\mal und l4 facts re msj.docx STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 1 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF: BILL & KIM BUNNELL 2 Mina L. Ramirez, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MINA L. RAMIREZ 3 1165 Scenic Drive, Suite C-1 Modesto, California 95350 4 Tel: (209) 491-0199 Fax: (209) 575-9497 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS/CROSS-DEFENDANTSz DUNCAN LYONS 6 & AMERISPEC INSPECTION SERVICES 7 I.Hooshie Broomand, Esq NEWMAN & BROOMAND, LLP 8 2360 E. Bidwell Street, #100 Folsom, CA 95630 9 Tel.: (916) 932-0397 10 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS/CROSS-DEFENDANTS: JASON WRIGHT & GINA WRIGHT 11 Joseph L. Wright, Esq. 12 LAW OFFICES 0F NATHAN I NUTTING 83 South Steward Street, Suite 102 13 Sonora, CA 95370 Tel.: (209) 536-4893 14 ATTORNEYS FOR CROSS-COMPLAINANTS: PREMIER VALLEY, INC. dba 15 CENTURY 21 M&M and ASSOCIATES and TAMI GOSSELIN 16 Cory B. Chartrand, Esq. TRIEBSCH & FRAMPTON, APC 17 P.O. Box 709 Turlock, California 95381 18 Tel.: (209) 667-2300 Fax: (209) 667-2357 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 l1:\61221\7085 l\msj\mal und 15 fa?“ 'e mSJ‘docx STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS