Facts

Tony and Tonya Ho sued Mexibanc Mortgage Corp., doing business as Palmas Realty, Javier Palma, Isabel Rojas, and David Cassford.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
In July 2010, plaintiffs were looking into purchasing a single-family residence in Chino. They contacted the property's listing agent, Rojas, who worked for Palmas Realty. Rojas agreed to represent plaintiffs in their pursuit of the property, although she was also representing the property's seller, Leticia Miranda. Because Miranda was experiencing financial problems, she executed a short sale on the property.

Plaintiffs later made a $240,000 offer for the property, but Rojas and Palma Realty were still negotiating the short sale with Bank of America. Rojas decided to use Alfredo Gonzalez and High Quality Escrow Inc. to negotiate the short sale with Bank of America. The plaintiffs waited for several months, before deciding to withdraw the offer. Rojas convinced the plaintiffs to change their minds, and told them that the price could be lowered to $232,000. The Hos later paid that price, and took possession of the property.

However, after believing they had purchased the property, the plaintiffs learned that the property was in foreclosure, and that Bank of America was still owed money for the house. The property was foreclosed on, and the plaintiffs lost both the property and their money. Both Gonzalez and High Quality Escrow went missing and could not be located.

Plaintiffs then sued Palmas Realty, Rojas, Palma, and Cassford. Palma was the president of Palmas Realty, while Cassford was Rojas' supervisor. Plaintiffs asserted that Palma and Rojas had breached their fiduciary duty to them by not meeting the standard of care during their dealings. They asserted that the defendants did not represent them properly, and that their failure to do so had caused them harm. They argued that the defendants did not properly supervise Gonzalez, and that they should have done more to make sure he was meeting his end of their deal. They also argued that Cassford had not properly trained and supervised Rojas, leading to their problems.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Rojas and Palmas Realty both argued that it was Gonzalez's criminal conduct that had actually harmed plaintiffs, and that neither of them could have foreseen it.

Cassford claimed he was not involved in the transaction at all, and had nothing to do with the plaintiffs or their purchase.

Damages

Plaintiffs sought $232,000, the amount they had lost from their purchase of the property.

Result

The court found that Rojas and Palma Realty were both liable to plaintiffs and awarded them $232,000. However, the court also found that Cassford was not responsible for the deal, even if he had not properly supervised Rojas.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Nov. 4, 2013.