Order: Wayne A Cook, Trustee of the Wayne A Cook 1998 Family Trust Dated 12/29/98 vs Edward f Niderost, Individually and as Trustee of the Edward F Niderost Revocable Living Trust Dated November 8, 1998

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                F Sup erior Court of California  F
                                                                                                     i        County of Butte         i
                                                                                                     L
                                                                                                    E        DEC    0 9  2020
                                                                                                                                     é
                                                                                                    D      I‘m   rl  iener, Clerk    D
                                                                                                    By                          Deputy


                                          SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA; COUNTY 0F BUTTE
                                                                     1775 Concord Avenue
                                                                        Chico, CA 95928



                             WAYNE A.        COOK, TRUSTEE OF THE                              Case NO.    20CV00905
                             WAYNE A.        COOK     1998 FAMILY TRUST
                             DATED      12/29/98,                                              ORDER AFTER            HEARING ON
                                                                                               PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
                                      Plaintiff,                                               JUDGMENT 0N THE                ‘


                                                                                               PLEADINGS
                             VS.

                             EDWARD F. NIDEROST, INDIVIDUALLY
                             AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE EDWARD F.
                             NIDEROST REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
                             DATED NOVEMBER 8,               1998,  et a1,


                                       Defendants.



                              AND RELATED           CROSS-COMPLADITS



                                    Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with regard to Defendant Niderost’s

                           Answer,    and motion for judgment on the pleadings with regard to              Defendant/Cross-

                           Complainant Niderost’s Cross-Complaint, came on for hearing on December 9, 2020.                         The

                           Court, having considered the moving'papers            and opposition,    evidence,    argument of counsel
                           and the Court’s records,      makes the following ruling.

                                    Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with regard to Defendant Niderost’s
                           Answer is    granted in part and denied in part.       The motion is granted with regard to the third,
                           fourth,  fth  and second fth       afrmative     defenses.    The motion is denied with regard to the

                           second afrmative       defense.   The Court nds       that the Answer, taken as      a whole and including

                           the facts in support, states an afrmative        defense of unconscionability.        Specically,     the

                           supporting facts in the Answer state:
                               o    Plaintiff is a sophisticated real estate developer and investor

                               o    Defendant lives in a frugal manner, reinvesting any money that has been paid to him

                                    through his investments       and historically keeping ample savings         and did not and does

                                    not have the nancial       ability to make the payments on the Notes and Deeds              of Trust
                               o    Escrow on the Miller Mansion closed only seven days               after execution of the Real

                                    Estate Purchase Agreement, despite the fact that Defendant,              as buyer, had 21    days to

                                    close escrow
                               o    The sale was    not made contingent upon any written appraisal
                               o    The sale was not subject to any loan contingency
                               o    Defendant was provided only one day, after acceptance of the offer, to do any and all

                                    inspections,   investigations, review any disclosures, reports or other materials;
                               o    Both loans provide that      if any amount on the Promissory Notes were not paid when
                                    due, the remaining principal and interest should immediately become due and payable

                                    Therefore, the motion with regard to the second afrmative               defense is denied.

                           Defendant is granted 30 days’        leave to amend his Answer.

                                    Cross-Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings                as to Niderost’s Cross-

                           Complaint is granted in its entirety.       With regard to the eighth cause of action, the Cross-

                           Complaint fails to state facts sufcient        to constitute a cause    of action for unconscionability.

                           Cross-Complainant is granted 30 days’           leave to amend the rst,      sixth,                  tenth and
                                                                                                               eighth, ninth,
                           eleventh causes of action within the Cross-Complaint.

                                    It is so Ordered.


                                 1am       (  2020                                                    V
                           D ate                                                 Hbn. Tama        L.    osbarger
                                                                                 Assistant Pre    'di  g Judge of the Superior Court