Facts

In 2003, defendant Consuelo Calderon purchased a duplex from her mother, plaintiff Elveda Hernandez, and half-sister Julia Hernandez-Zumba.

Plaintiff claimed that defendant tricked her into selling the duplex, contending that the sale to defendant was only a "refinance" and that defendant agreed to put her back onto title as the owner some time after the transaction was accomplished, which she failed to do.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended she had an agreement with her daughter Julia that Julia would receive $20,000 and that the plaintiff would receive the rest. After the property was listed, the defendant contacted plaintiff after ten years of not speaking and offered to help the plaintiff keep her property by assisting her in a refinance, which required that the property be put in the defendant's name. The defendant had promised the plaintiff that she would deed the property back to her any time she wanted. The transaction was portrayed as a sale to facilitate financing. When the plaintiff requested the property back, the defendant refused, claiming that the property was hers. The plaintiff then refused to make contributions to the mortgage until the property was placed in her name, whereupon the defendant commenced eviction proceedings against her mother.

The plaintiff contended that the defendant fraudulently induced her to convey her property to the defendant upon her promise to help her with refinancing the property to enable the plaintiff to buy out her other daughter Julia and to assist with the mortgage payments by paying rent in exchange for the defendant living in one of the units. The plaintiff was an unsophisticated, elderly woman with little education who could not read any English and relied and trusted in her daughter to help her. At the time of the transaction, the property had a fair market value of $252,000 and a mortgage against it in the sum of approximately $164,000. When the transaction closed, Julia was paid approximately $17,000, which were the total net proceeds generated from the transaction. The plaintiff received nothing from the proceeds intending to retain her interest in the property and further paid the defendant's purported down payment, loan fees and all costs associated with the transaction.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant denied all claims, contending that plaintiff had asked her to buy the duplex from her and Julia because plaintiff was being forced out of the residence by Julia, who wanted the property sold. The defendant also contended that plaintiff promised to reside in the duplex if she bought it, and that rent would be paid.

The defendant further contended plaintiff notified the defendant that her duplex was for sale through a broker. The defendant contended that she brought the duplex at fair market value. The defendant denied participating in a sham refinance transaction and purchased the duplex from the plaintiff at arm's length.

Result

Defense verdict.

Other Information

FILING DATE: July 24, 2007.

Deliberation

1.5 hours

Poll

12-0 (for defendant - three special verdicts), 10-2 (for defendant - two special verdicts)

Length

10 days