DeSimone v. Paula Crilly, David Crilly
Published: Feb. 22, 2001 | Result Date: Oct. 24, 2000 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: BC201053 Verdict – $1,300,000
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Lloyd S. Mann
(Law Offices of Lloyd S. Mann, A Professional Law Corporation)
Defendant
Facts
Pat DeSimone and Paula Crilly are sisters. David Crilly is Paula CrillyÆs husband. Pat DeSimone and Paula
CrillyÆs father left them, and two other sisters, a substantial estate. A number of years ago, the two other sisters
sued Pat DeSimone and Paula Crilly in connection with the disposition of the estate as the father gave greater
control of the estate to Pat DeSimone and Paula Crilly, who at the time were very close to each other. Those
lawsuits were settled years ago.
At time of trial, the estate property still in dispute consisted almost entirely of real property. There were three
pieces of real-estate rental income property worth approximately $1.6 million, residential property worth
approximately $600,000 and vacant lots worth approximately $400,000.
Because the plaintiff was very busy with her business, defendants Paula and David Crilly undertook to manage
the affairs of the estate, to manage the rental property and to keep the books and records of the estate, including
the rental property. In addition, almost 10 years ago, the defendants moved into the residential property.
The plaintiff contended that the defendants did so without telling her, or seeking her authority.
The defendants contended that as co-owners, Paula had the right to live in the house rent free. The plaintiff
conceded that she had not been "ousted" from the house. Because the house was owned free and clear of any
encumbrances, the Crillys did not have any rental or mortgage payments from the time they moved into the
house until they moved out when they purchased another home in early 2000.
The plaintiff contended that, for almost 10 years, she received no benefits or money from the estate while the
defendants were able to live rent-free in the house for almost a decade. In addition, the plaintiff contended that
in managing the rental property, the defendants took money from the rental proceeds without the authority of
the plaintiff.
The plaintiff further contended that she was essentially "held hostage." The defendants, according to the
plaintiff, wanted to sell the property and divide the proceeds. However, the plaintiff says that she took the
position that she would not agree to anything until she received an appropriate accounting in connection with
the entire estate, including the rental income proceeds.
The plaintiff contended that she did not receive appropriate accountings and that the defendants basically
converted the rental property account into a personal account for themselves using much of the rental proceeds
to pay their personal expenses. In many months, according to the plaintiff, the majority of the rental proceeds
wound up going to the defendants. Nothing went to the plaintiff during all of those years.
The defendant acknowledge that they did take money from the rental property account for their personal use,
but contended that it was their right to do so because Paula Crilly was one/half owner of the estate properties.
The defendants asserted that they did nothing wrong, that the property should be ordered sold as plead in the
complaint and that the proceeds from the sale should be divided evenly between the plaintiff and Paula Crilly
with the exception of an offset of over $210,000 in favor of the plaintiff, which the defendants conceded was
owed as part of the accounting.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff offered, on the first day of trial, a settlement whereby she would be given complete ownership of the rental property (which the defendants testified was worth $1.6 million with a $400,000 encumbrance) and that defendant Paula Crilly, would be given complete ownership of the residence (worth approximately $600,000, with no encumbrances) and that the vacant lots (worth according to the defendants about $400,000 with no encumbrances) should be sold with the first $300,000 from the sale of the lots going to defendant Paula Crilly. The defendants rejected that offer which was worth several hundred thousand dollars more than previous offers that the plaintiff had made prior to the first day of trial. The defendants were agreeable to the rental property being transferred completely to the plaintiff, but, in addition to receiving the house, they wanted substantially more than the first $300,000 from the sale of the lots.
Damages
The plaintiff demanded that the three properties be ordered sold, and that she be paid $52,000 (which defendants conceded) from that sale to reimburse her for money that she had loaned the estate, $158,000 (which defendants conceded) that the defendant had taken from the estate, (including the rental property proceeds) and $184,000 in rental income that the plaintiff lost out on by virtue of the defendants having resided at the residence for almost a decade rent-free when the property could have been rented out. The plaintiff also demanded unspecified damages based upon theories of conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. Based upon the fraud and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action, the plaintiff also demanded unspecified punitive damages. The jury awarded a total of $700,000 in compensatory damages and $600,000 in punitive damages and $300,000 against each of the Crillys.
Other Information
<P>The motion for new trial and the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict were denied on Dec. 13, 2000. An appeal is pending based on alleged errors including an award of punitive damages without any evidence of David CrillyÆs net worth; an award of $700,000 in compensatory damages without any evidence or argument by the plaintiffÆs counsel that the damages exceed $395,000; and an award of $184,800 for lost rental value despite the fact that the plaintiff admitted that there had been no ouster and the parties had entered into and filed a stipulation during trial that the home was co-owned by the two sisters. The court refused to admit this stipulation into evidence and refused to advise the jury of the stipulation.</P>
Deliberation
1.5 days
Poll
12-0 (liability), 11-1 (damages)
Length
11 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390