Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractbreach of contractdefendanttrialaffidavitcivil procedure
contractplaintiffdefendanttrialmotioncivil procedure

Related Cases

Rigby v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 717 Fed.Appx. 834
View Case »
Johnson v. Georgia Highway Exp., Inc., 47 F.R.D. 327, 70 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2664, 1 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 637, 1 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9950, 12 Fed.R.Serv.2d 958
View Case »
Sawyer v. First City Financial Corp., 124 Cal.App.3d 390, 177 Cal.Rptr. 398
View Case »
Guyot v. Al Charyn, Inc., 69 A.D.2d 79, 417 N.Y.S.2d 941
View Case »
Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 124 S.Ct. 1920, 158 L.Ed.2d 866, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4197, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5878, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 292
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wathen v. Superior Court In and For Santa Clara County, 212 Cal.App.2d 125, 27 Cal.Rptr. 840

Facts

McMillan Mortgage Co. initiated a breach of contract action against Spalding G. Wathen and Wathen Brothers, alleging that the defendants failed to deliver loan application packages as required by their contract. The contract was entered into in Santa Clara County, and McMillan claimed that the packages were to be delivered to its office in Palo Alto, California. Wathen sought to change the venue to Fresno County, arguing that all defendants resided there and that the contract was performed in Fresno.

The complaint further alleges that the above contract provided that the defendants would deliver to McMillan in Santa Clara County before a specified date each loan application package prepared by defendants; that McMillan performed all conditions to be performed on its part; that the defendants failed and refused to perform the contract on their part in that they failed and refused to deliver said loan application packages to plaintiff as agreed and did deliver them to other mortgage companies and banks.

Issue

Whether the proper venue for the breach of contract action was Santa Clara County or Fresno County.

Does the contract before us sufficiently designate Santa Clara County as the place of the performance of the defendants' obligation and thus make section 395 operative to fix venue in such county?

Rule

Under Section 395 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the proper venue for a contract action can be in the county where the obligation is to be performed, where the contract was entered into, or where the defendant resides at the commencement of the action.

Section 395 of the Code of Civil Procedure in relevant part provides as follows: ‘When a defendant has contracted to perform an obligation in a particular county, either the county where such obligation is to be performed, or in which the contract in fact was entered into, or the county in which the defendant, or any such defendant, resides at the commencement of the action, shall be a proper county for the trial of an action founded on such obligation, and the county in which such obligation is incurred shall be deemed to be the county in which it is to be performed unless there is a special contract in writing to the contrary.’

Analysis

The court analyzed the conflicting affidavits regarding the contract's terms and the intended place of performance. It determined that the contract, although not explicitly stating the address in the performance clause, indicated through its letterhead that the delivery of loan packages was to occur at McMillan's office in Palo Alto, Santa Clara County. The court found that the trial court's interpretation of the contract was reasonable and supported by the evidence presented.

The trial court properly construed the contract as set forth under the foregoing letterhead. As we have pointed out, paragraph 9 of the contract required defendants to deliver the loan application packages to McMillan Mortgage Co. Although the address of McMillan was not stated in the paragraph, it was stated in the letterhead. It would be technical and unrealistic to hold that the address would have to be restated in the paragraph in order to satisfy section 395.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the proper venue for the action was Santa Clara County and denied the petition for a peremptory writ, affirming the trial court's ruling.

Since we conclude that proper venue is in Santa Clara County we find it unnecessary to discuss venue as based upon the residence of the defendants or the place where the contract was entered into.

Who won?

McMillan Mortgage Co. prevailed in the case because the court found that the contract specified Santa Clara County as the place of performance for the delivery of loan application packages.

The court below thereupon denied the motion for change of venue.

You must be