File: LVCrt-04

Superior Court of the State of California
City and County of San Francisco

Number 891863
Diane Hegarty, Plaintiff
Anton LaVey, Defendant

Anton LaVey, Cross-Plaintiff
Diane Hegarty, Cross-Defendant



1. On or about April 24, 1985 cross-defendant Diane Hegarty
("Hegarty" hereinafter) represented in writing that she would live
in the house located at 6114 California Street, San Francisco,
California with cross-plaintiff Anton LaVey ("LaVey" hereinafter) if
LaVey would agree in writing to grant Hegarty a one-half interest in
certain real and personal property he possessed; assist Hegarty in
separating the top floor from the lower floors and in building a
separate entrance to the house to permit Hegarty private access,
use, and occupancy of said top floor; pay to Hegarty one-half the
income from his business, but in no event less than $400 per month;
pay to Hegarty 10% of the royalties he received from certain books
written by LaVey, promise not to sell or otherwise dispose of or
encumber in any way without Hegarty's written consent any of the
personal or real property possessed by LaVey in which he was to
grant Hegarty a one-half interest. A true and correct copy of the
writing containing the aforementioned representation by Hegarty is
attached to plaintiff's first amended complaint as Exhibit #B.

2. Said representation was false, and Hegarty knew it to be false.
In truth and in fact Hegarty never intended to reside at 6114
California Street.

3. Hegarty made the written representation with the intention to
induce LaVey to sign the agreement granting to Hegarty a one-half
interest in the real and personal property described and enumerated
in plaintiff's Exhibit #B and promising to cooperate with Hegarty in
the aforementioned remodeling of 6114 California Street, and
promising to pay Hegarty at least $400 per month from his business
plus 10% of the royalties from the books written by LaVey.

4. Reasonably relying on Hegarty's representation, LaVey was induced
to and did in fact sign the agreement on April 25, 1985, granting to
Hegarty the property interests she requested.

5. LaVey discovered the fraud, as heretofore alleged, in the summer
of 1986, when Hegarty expressly disavowed that she ever intended to
reside again at 6114 California.

6. LaVey has been damaged by Hegarty's fraud, as heretofore alleged,
by granting to Hegarty property and property interests to which she
was not otherwise entitled, in an amount according to proof.

7. Because of the fraud of Hegarty, LaVey is entitled to punitive
damages under California Civil Code Section 3394.

Wherefore LaVey prays for judgment against Hegarty as set forth


8. LaVey incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs #1-7
and realleges them as though fully set forth.

9. LaVey intends service of summons of this cross-complaint to serve
as notice of rescission of the aforementioned contract, and hereby
offers to restore all consideration furnished by Hegarty under said
contract, on condition that Hegarty restore to him the consideration
furnished by LaVey, to wit $14,400 in cash and certain personal
property to be described following an inventory of the same.

10. LaVey will suffer irreparable and substantial harm if
consideration furnished by him, as described in the preceding
paragraph, with interest thereon at the rate of 7% per annum from
the date of service of this cross-complaint, is not restored, in
that he has received nothing of value in return therefor, and said
sum and other consideration furnished by LaVey will be forever lost
in absence of a determination of rescission herein.

Wherefore LaVey prays judgment as follows:

On the First Cause of Action:
1. General damages according to proof.
2. Exemplary and punitive damages.

On the Second Cause of Action:
3. A determination by the court that said contract has been
rescinded and that cross-defendant be ordered to restore all of said
consideration paid by cross-plaintiff.
4. Damages according to proof.
5. Interest on all of said sums as allowed by law.

On all causes of action:
6. Reasonable attorney fees according to proof.
7. Costs of suit.
8. Such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.

/s/ Owen Mayer, Attorney for cross-plaintiff LaVey

[back to menu]