This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Attorneys
Legal Malpractice
Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Thomas Evans v. Thomas Camp

Published: May 28, 2003 | Result Date: Feb. 13, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CIVMSC0000729 Verdict –  $2,100,000

Judge

David B. Flinn

Court

Contra Costa Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Thomas A. Trapani


Defendant

Howard R. Melamed


Experts

Plaintiff

Mark Abelson
(technical)

Facts

The plaintiff, Thomas Evans, retained the defendant Thomas Camp, Esq. to represent him in a partition action filed by Evan's brother. Camp was entrusted with the responsibility of investing and managing Evan's nearly $1 million share of the proceeds from the partitioned property. Camp invested the bulk of Evan's proceeds in a Stockton shopping center which was not suitable for Evan's investment. Following the purchase, Camp represented the shopping center in subsequent transactions. Camp used the remaining $96,000 to purchase a 20 percent interest in 40 acres of land that Camp had himself purchased for a total of $123,000 20 days before. Camp kept Evans' $96,000 for himself, leaving the full 40 acre parcel of land fully encumbered. When the shopping center went into foreclosure one year after purchase, Camp took out a $125,000 loan against Evans' three remaining properties, including his residence. All of Evans' properties were eventually lost to foreclosure except for his 20 percent ownership interest in Camp's property.

Settlement Discussions

The defendant submitted a C.C.P. Section 998 offer of $101,000.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed the full amount of the initial investment in the shopping center, without interest, the full value of the three parcels of land which were used as collateral for the $125,000 loan, and the full value of the 96/123 percentage of the 40 acres that plaintiff should have received with his $96,000 investment.

Result

The jury awarded the plaintiff the full amount invested in the shopping center, the full value of the three parcels of property lost to foreclosure and $430,000 for the portion of the 40 acres, that the plaintiff should have, but did not receive with his $96,000 investment.

Other Information

The defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied. The defendant's motion for a new trial was conditionally granted pending the plaintiff's agreement to a $300,000 reduction in one item of damages. The plaintiff's motion for a constructive trust over 9.1 acres of land was granted.

Deliberation

two days

Poll

9-3 (on three special findings)

Length

15 days


#106673

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390