Eskra v. Grace et al.

HearingDescription: Remittitur issued.

DispositionDescription: Affirmed in full; Disposition Type: Final The trial court's judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to respondents.; Publication Status: Signed Published; Author: Simons, Mark B.; Participants: Needham, Jr., Henry E. (Concur) Jackson, Teri L. (Concur)

DocketDescription: Opinion filed.; Notes: (Signed Published) The trial court's judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to respondents.

DocketDescription: Cause argued and submitted.

DocketDescription: Order filed.; Notes: BY THE COURT: This matter is set for oral argument on March 22, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. Each party shall limit its arguments to 15 minutes per side. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.256(c).) The court requests that the parties focus on the following issues at oral argument: (1) Did appellant misinterpret the terms of the premarital agreement, a mistake of law, or was she simply mistaken regarding the contents of the agreement, a mistake of fact? (2) If appellant made a mistake of fact, did she bear the risk of her mistake due to neglect of a legal duty? (See Donovan v. RRL Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 261; Casey v. Proctor (1963) 59 Cal.2d 97.) In answering this question, please address the following abbreviated analysis: In Donovan, an automobile dealer placed an advertisement in a newspaper. The newspaper made typographical and proofreading errors that resulted in a listed price significantly below the intended sales price. A buyer offered the advertised price, but the dealer refused to sell. The buyer sued for breach of contract. (Donovan v. RRL Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 261, 266-267 (Donovan).) Donovan held rescission of the contract was warranted and concluded the court of appeal erred "to the extent it suggested that a unilateral mistake of fact affords a ground for rescission only where the other party is aware of the mistake." (Id. at p. 279.) The Supreme Court "adopt[ed]" "as California law" "the rule in section 153, subdivision (a), of the Restatement Second of Contracts, authorizing rescission for unilateral mistake of fact where enforcement would be unconscionable." (Donovan, at p. 281.) Section 153, subdivision (a) states, "Where a mistake of one party at the time a contract was made as to a basic assumption on which he made the contract has a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances that is adverse to him, the contract is voidable by him if he does not bear the risk of the mistake under the rule stated in 154, and (a) the effect of the mistake is such that enforcement of the contract would be unconscionable, or (b) the other party had reason to know of the mistake or his fault caused the mistake." (Rest.2d Contracts, 153, subd. (a).) On the issue of who "should bear the risk of its mistake," Donovan addressed whether it was reasonable to allocate the risk of the mistake in the advertisement to the defendant. (Donovan, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 283.) The Supreme Court looked at both Civil Code section 1577 (Section 1577) and the Restatement Second of Contracts (Restatement), essentially treating "neglect of a legal duty" under Section 1577 as a circumstance where a mistaken party "bear[s] the risk of the mistake" under section 153 of the Restatement. (Donovan, at p. 283.) Section 1577, the court observed, "instructs that the risk of a mistake must be allocated to a party where the mistake results from that party's neglect of a legal duty." (Donovan, at p. 283.) Donovan reasoned that, "[t]he mere fact that a mistaken party could have avoided the mistake by the exercise of reasonable care does not preclude . . . avoidance . . . [on the ground of mistake]. Nevertheless, in extreme cases the mistaken party's fault is a proper ground for denying him relief for a mistake that he otherwise could have avoided. . . ." (Id. at pp. 283-284.)The critical question in the present case is whether appellant's failure to read the premarital agreement and meet with her counsel regarding the changes to the agreement constituted neglect of a legal duty within the meaning of Section 1577. In Casey v. Proctor (1963) 59 Cal.2d 97 (Casey), the Supreme Court stated the "question" before it was "whether plaintiff's failure to read the release, or, if he did read it, his failure to understand that it extended also to claims for personal injuries was, as a matter of law, the neglect of a legal duty (see [] 1577)." (Casey, at p. 104.) The court concluded, "the failure of plaintiff to recognize that the release included a discharge of liability for personal injuries has been held to be attributable to his own neglect, both under California authority [citations] and in the vast majority of other jurisdictions." (Id. at pp. 104-105.) Stewart v. Preston Pipeline Inc. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1565, followed both Donovan and Casey in resolving a unilateral mistake claim. Stewart stated, " 'It is well established, in the absence of fraud, overreaching or excusable neglect, that one who signs an instrument may not avoid the impact of its terms on the ground that he failed to read the instrument before signing it.' " (Stewart, at p. 1588; accord Roldan v. Callahan & Blaine (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 87, 93.) The Stewart court then cited Casey for the proposition that "a contracting party is not entitled to relief from his or her alleged unilateral mistake" where the party failed to read the contract before signing it. (Stewart, at p. 1589; accord Amin v. Superior Ct. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1406-1407 (Amin).) Finally, a comment to section 157 of the Restatement-which Donovan stated reflects "[a] concept similar to neglect of a legal duty" (Donovan, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 283)-explains that failure to read a contract constitutes "failure to act in good faith and in accordance with reasonable standards of fair dealing" within the meaning of that section. (Rest.2d Contracts, 157.) In sum, we conclude that, even assuming appellant's husband was aware of appellant's mistake, her rescission claim is barred because she bore the risk of that mistake. (Donovan, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 282-283; see also Amin, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 1407.)

DocketDescription: Email sent to:; Notes: counsel re OA and practice session w/ BlueJeans link

DocketDescription: Calendar notice sent electronically. Calendar date:; Notes: March 22, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.

DocketDescription: Letter brief filed.; Notes: Petitioner and Appellant: Brandy L. Eskra Attorney: Deborah S. Bull

DocketBrief: Letter brief filed.; Party Attorney: Petitioner and Appellant: Brandy L. EskraAttorney: Deborah S. Bull

DocketDescription: Letter brief filed.; Notes: Objector and Respondent: Catherine Grace Attorney: Myron Moskovitz

DocketDescription: Stipulation of extension of time filed to:; Notes: Appellant's appendix and opening brief filed. Due on 09/01/2021 By 30 Day(s)

DocketDescription: Civil case information statement filed.; Notes: Petitioner and Appellant: Brandy L. Eskra Attorney: Deborah S. Bull Copy of order attached

DocketBrief: Civil case information statement filed.; Party Attorney: Petitioner and Appellant: Brandy L. EskraAttorney: Deborah S. Bull; Notes: Copy of order attached

DocketDescription: Order waiving filing fee.; Notes: appellant

DocketDescription: Application for waiver of filing fee filed.; Notes: appellant

DocketDescription: Record on appeal filed.; Notes: R-1(e-filed) **Entire Record Electronic**

DocketDescription: Appellant's notice designating record on appeal filed in trial court on:; Notes: 05/17/2021. Designating 8.124 with RT.

DocketDescription: Notified parties of local rules and procedures.

DocketDescription: Notice of appeal lodged/received.; Notes: Filed 05/07/2021 by Counsel for Petitioner Brandy L. Eskra appealing judgment from 04/15/2021.

DocketTrial Court Name: Humboldt County Superior Court - Main; County: Humboldt; Trial Court Case Number: PR180086; Trial Court Judge: Canning, Timothy