election of remedies doctrine in California

2024Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 101, 137 (Glendale Fed.) [“the doctrine of election of 20 remedies . . . operates only where pursuit of alternative and inconsistent remedies substantially prejudices the defendant”].)17 Here, the election of remedies doctrine would bar Starflinger’s specific performance claim only if the record shows that Starflinger “unequivocally and knowledgeably elected to proceed on one of the remedies he [was] pursuing,” and thereby caused substantial prejudice to KBC.

2023Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 101, 137, 138 [“the doctrine of election of remedies, bottomed upon the equitable principle of estoppel, operates only where pursuit of alternative and inconsistent remedies substantially prejudices the defendant”; “[e]lection of remedies is a harsh doctrine and is currently looked upon with disfavor by courts and commentators”].)3 Here, of course, Cooper occasioned no injury to Grady or Reliant and gained no advantage over them in the course of the litigation.

2024In California the doctrine is theorized on the principle of estoppel. . . . ‘Whenever a party entitled to enforce two remedies either institutes an action upon one of such remedies or performs any act in the pursuit of such remedy, whereby he has gained any advantage over the other party, or he has occasioned the other party any damage, he will be held to have made an election of such remedy, and will not be entitled to pursue any other remedy for the enforcement of his right.’ ” ( Roam, supra, 41 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1039–1040, citation omitted.) Because “ ‘[t]he doctrine of election of remedies

2022“Broadly speaking, election of remedies is the act of choosing between two or more concurrent but inconsistent remedies based upon the same state of facts.” (Roam v. Koop (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 1035, 1039 .) “In its ‘conventional form,’ the doctrine of election of remedies ‘is stated as follows: Where a person has two concurrent remedies to obtain relief on the same state of facts, and these remedies are inconsistent, he must choose or elect between them; and if he has clearly elected to proceed on one, he is bound by this election and cannot thereafter pursue the other.

2007Coast Cheese, supra, at p. 80; Mansfield v. Pickwick Stages (1923) 191 Cal. 129, 131 [ 215 P. 389 ].) The election of remedies doctrine ordinarily does not preclude a plaintiff who has pled alternative remedies from changing his or her election before the defendant has suffered an injury from the prior election through the application of res judicata or a satisfaction of judgment.

2007Coast Cheese, supra, at p. 80; Mansfield v. Pickwick Stages (1923) 191 Cal. 129, 131 [ 215 P. 389 ].) The election of remedies doctrine ordinarily does not preclude a plaintiff who has pled alternative remedies from changing his or her election before the defendant has suffered an injury from the prior election through the application of res judicata or a satisfaction of judgment.

1928Under well-settled principles of the doctrine of estoppel, the disadvantage caused the other party by a change of remedy must be a real injury, such as would, in the contemplation of law, amount to an estoppel, and when it is of this character the doctrine of election of remedies will be applied by the courts (Buckmaster v. Bertram, 186 Cal. 673, 678 [ 200 Pac. 610 ]; Mansfield v. Pickwick Stages, 191 Cal. 129, 131 [ 215 Pac. 389 ]; Roullard v. Rosenberg, 193 Cal. 360 [ 224 Pac. 449 ]).

1928Under well-settled principles of the doctrine of estoppel, the disadvantage caused the other party by a change of remedy must be a real injury, such as would, in the contemplation of law, amount to an estoppel, and when it is of this character the doctrine of election of remedies will be applied by the courts (Buckmaster v. Bertram, 186 Cal. 673, 678 [ 200 Pac. 610 ]; Mansfield v. Pickwick Stages, 191 Cal. 129, 131 [ 215 Pac. 389 ]; Roullard v. Rosenberg, 193 Cal. 360 [ 224 Pac. 449 ]).

2020Ordinarily a plaintiff need not elect, and cannot be compelled to elect, between inconsistent remedies during the course of trial prior to judgment. [Citations.] However, if a plaintiff has unequivocally and knowledgeably elected to proceed on one of the remedies he is pursuing, he may be barred recourse to the other.” (Roam v. Koop (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 1035, 1039 .) “Courts and commentators have long recognized the harshness of the election of remedies doctrine and have for some time looked upon it with disfavor. [Citations.] To mitigate the doctrine’s effects, courts over the years have devi

1985Ordinarily, a plaintiff need not elect, and cannot be compelled to elect, between inconsistent remedies during the course of trial prior to judgment. [Citations.]” (Roam v. Koop (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 1035, 1039 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 539 ].) ‘“The doctrine of election of remedies is but a specific application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel. [Citations.] The doctrine rests on the rationale that when plaintiff has pursued a remedy which is inconsistent with an alternative remedy and thereby causes the defendant substantial prejudice, plaintiff should be estopped from pursuing the alternative reme

1942Co. v. Superior Ct., 7 Cal.2d 121 [ 59 P.2d 978 , 107 A.L.R. 714 ].) The following quotation is typical: “The doctrine of election of remedies is but a specific application of the equitable doctrine of estoppel, and it has been frequently held that a change in remedies does not bring about an election of remedies unless the change involves a prejudice to the opposing party.’’ (Commercial Centre R.

1942Co. v. Superior Ct., 7 Cal.2d 121 [ 59 P.2d 978 , 107 A.L.R. 714 ].) The following quotation is typical: “The doctrine of election of remedies is but a specific application of the equitable doctrine of estoppel, and it has been frequently held that a change in remedies does not bring about an election of remedies unless the change involves a prejudice to the opposing party.’’ (Commercial Centre R.

2007Coast Cheese, supra, at p. 80, 286 P.2d 353 ; Mansfield v. Pickwick Stages (1923) 191 Cal. 129, 131 , 215 P. 389 .) The election of remedies doctrine ordinarily does not preclude a plaintiff who has pled alternative remedies from changing his or her election before the defendant has suffered an injury from the prior election through the application of res judicata or a satisfaction of judgment. ( Southern Christian Leadership Conference v. Al Malaikah Auditorium Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 207, 223 , 281 Cal.Rptr. 216 .) Whether the facts establish an equitable estoppel is a question for the tri

2007Coast Cheese, supra, at p. 80, 286 P.2d 353 ; Mansfield v. Pickwick Stages (1923) 191 Cal. 129, 131 , 215 P. 389 .) The election of remedies doctrine ordinarily does not preclude a plaintiff who has pled alternative remedies from changing his or her election before the defendant has suffered an injury from the prior election through the application of res judicata or a satisfaction of judgment. ( Southern Christian Leadership Conference v. Al Malaikah Auditorium Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 207, 223 , 281 Cal.Rptr. 216 .) Whether the facts establish an equitable estoppel is a question for the tri

1999(See, e.g., Steiner v. Rowley (1950) 35 Cal.2d 713, 720 [ 221 P.2d 9 ] [“. . . the doctrine of election of remedies is based upon the principle of estoppel”; doctrine applies where “inconsistent” remedies are sought whereby plaintiff gains an advantage over defendant]; Roam v. Koop (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 1035 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 539 ] [same; also decided pursuant to pr e-Randone law]; Barrett v. Hammer Builders, Inc., supra, 195 Cal.App.2d 305, 316 [levy of attachment “interfered with defendants’ possession of their property” and “[defendants were deprived of the use of their money”].) 9 Thus the co

1999(See, e.g., Steiner v. Rowley (1950) 35 Cal.2d 713, 720 [ 221 P.2d 9 ] [“. . . the doctrine of election of remedies is based upon the principle of estoppel”; doctrine applies where “inconsistent” remedies are sought whereby plaintiff gains an advantage over defendant]; Roam v. Koop (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 1035 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 539 ] [same; also decided pursuant to pr e-Randone law]; Barrett v. Hammer Builders, Inc., supra, 195 Cal.App.2d 305, 316 [levy of attachment “interfered with defendants’ possession of their property” and “[defendants were deprived of the use of their money”].) 9 Thus the co

2021(Denevi v. LGCC, LLC (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1218 [“ ‘Where a person has two concurrent remedies to obtain relief on the same state of facts, and these remedies are inconsistent, he must choose or elect between them; and if he has clearly elected to proceed on one, he is bound by this election and cannot thereafter pursue the other.’ ”].) “The doctrine is based on estoppel and, when applicable, operates only if the party asserting it has been injured.” (Pac.

2013Broadly speaking, an election of remedies is the choice by a plaintiff to an action of one of two or more coexisting remedial rights, where several such rights arise out of the same facts, but the term has been generally limited to a choice by a party between inconsistent remedial rights, the assertion of one being necessarily repugnant to or a repudiation of the other.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Denevi v. LGCC, LLC (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1218 (Denevi), italics omitted.) Defendant claims that the election of remedies doctrine should not apply because the jury was never asked to consider

2024(Brandolino v. Lindsay (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 319 , 324–325 [in an action for specific performance or, in the alternative, for damages for the breach of an agreement to sell land, the plaintiff obtained a bench trial on specific performance, followed by a trial for damages, before electing a remedy].) The doctrine of the election of remedies, which KBC relied upon in the trial court, refers to a situation in which a plaintiff is deemed to have irreversibly elected a remedy.

1974(Brandolino v. Lindsay, 269 Cal.App.2d 319, 326 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 56 ]; City Bank of San Diego v. Ramage, supra, 266 Cal.App.2d 570, 588 ; Hansen v. California Bank, 17 Cal.App.2d 80, 102 [ 61 P.2d 794 ]; Klinger v. Modesto Fruit Co., Inc., supra, 107 Cal.App. 97, 103 .) And ordinarily an appellate court will not consider procedural defects in connection with relief sought where an objection could have been made but was not raised in the lower court. (6 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed.) § 276, p. 4264.) If the doctrine of election of remedies is founded on equitable estoppel (Steiner v. Rowley, sup

2007Coast Cheese, supra, at p. 80, 286 P.2d 353 ; Mansfield v. Pickwick Stages (1923) 191 Cal. 129, 131 , 215 P. 389 .) The election of remedies doctrine ordinarily does not preclude a plaintiff who has pled alternative remedies from changing his or her election before the defendant has suffered an injury from the prior election through the application of res judicata or a satisfaction of judgment. ( Southern Christian Leadership Conference v. Al Malaikah Auditorium Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 207, 223 , 281 Cal.Rptr. 216 .) Whether the facts establish an equitable estoppel is a question for the tri

1968Bank, 45 Cal.2d 75, 80 [ 286 P.2d 353 ].) The doctrine of election of remedies, being a form of estoppel, is an affirmative defense that ordinarily must be specially pleaded unless it appears on the face of the complaint.

2025(Id., subd. (h)(2), italics added; Kirkpatrick v. Westamerica Bank, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 989 [the security-first rule is an election of remedies doctrine].) Here, the prior lenders issued a notice of default in September 2019 and claimed an outstanding balance of past due loan payments as well as the full loan principal amount before transferring their security interest in the property to Selene.

2023(See Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v. Screen Gems, Inc. (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 367, 375 [“ ‘To permit a party to proceed with an action until an unfavorable decision on a motion is rendered and then allow it to resort, against the wishes of the adversary, to [a subsequent action], where a better result is hoped for, would cause an unnecessary waste of time and effort to all concerned and is a fundamentally unfair procedure which should not be encouraged.’ ”].) 8. underlying complaint shows appellant’s fraud claims are primarily premised on the same factual assertions rejected by the tria

2004The trial court wrote, “By proceeding to judgment on the ‘derivative’ claims . . . , plaintiff elected to affirm the . . . operating agreement by which he assigned the option *1218 to purchase the . . . property . . . .” The court noted that plaintiff had failed to raise any issue concerning “this election,” and cited authorities concerning the doctrine of election of remedies, i.e., 3 Witkin, California Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Actions, section 181, page 253 (explaining basis of doctrine) and Evans v. Rancho Royale Hotel Co. (1952) 114 Cal.App.2d 503, 507 [ 250 P.2d 283 ] (applying doctrine;

2004The trial court wrote, “By proceeding to judgment on the ‘derivative’ claims . . . , plaintiff elected to affirm the . . . operating agreement by which he assigned the option *1218 to purchase the . . . property . . . .” The court noted that plaintiff had failed to raise any issue concerning “this election,” and cited authorities concerning the doctrine of election of remedies, i.e., 3 Witkin, California Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Actions, section 181, page 253 (explaining basis of doctrine) and Evans v. Rancho Royale Hotel Co. (1952) 114 Cal.App.2d 503, 507 [ 250 P.2d 283 ] (applying doctrine;

2002The doctrine of election of remedies “ ‘ “has been generally limited to a choice by a party between inconsistent remedial rights, the assertion of one being necessarily repugnant to or a repudiation of the other.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Schumm v. Berg (1951) 37 Cal.2d 174, 189-190 [ 231 P.2d 39 , 21 A.L.R.2d 1051 ].) Disposition The judgment is affirmed.

2002The doctrine of election of remedies “ ‘ “has been generally limited to a choice by a party between inconsistent remedial rights, the assertion of one being necessarily repugnant to or a repudiation of the other.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Schumm v. Berg (1951) 37 Cal.2d 174, 189-190 [ 231 P.2d 39 , 21 A.L.R.2d 1051 ].) Disposition The judgment is affirmed.

1999(See, e.g., Steiner v. Rowley (1950) 35 Cal.2d 713, 720 [ 221 P.2d 9 ] [“. . . the doctrine of election of remedies is based upon the principle of estoppel”; doctrine applies where “inconsistent” remedies are sought whereby plaintiff gains an advantage over defendant]; Roam v. Koop (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 1035 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 539 ] [same; also decided pursuant to pr e-Randone law]; Barrett v. Hammer Builders, Inc., supra, 195 Cal.App.2d 305, 316 [levy of attachment “interfered with defendants’ possession of their property” and “[defendants were deprived of the use of their money”].) 9 Thus the co