Hilton Oliva, Rhonda Oliva v. San Jose Advantage Homes Inc.
Published: Oct. 29, 2005 | Result Date: Aug. 24, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 2002073480 Verdict – $32,160
Judge
Court
Alameda Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Michael G. Descalso
(Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith)
Defendant
Mark P. Poliquin
(Poliquin & DeGrave LLP)
Experts
Plaintiff
Peter Taheny
(technical)
Yvette M. Wilson
(technical)
Defendant
David Dahmen
(technical)
Joseph Russo
(technical)
Facts
In January 2003, plaintiffs Hilton and Rhonda Oliva bought a mobile home from defendant San Jose Advantage Homes. The sales price included a one-year warranty. The home, manufactured by Silvercrest Manufactured Homes, was installed on a site of a prior manufactured home that included a four-inch thick concrete patio, which had never been removed. Some of the support piers that made up the foundation for the plaintiffs' home were placed on the concrete and others on the soil. Thus, the home was not level. The plaintiffs alleged that within weeks of the home's installation, it began to manifest cracks inside and out, and exhibited other signs of faulty manufacture or installation. Within 10 months of the installation, the plaintiffs notified the defendant of the structural problems and the company's warranty representative arranged for some of the problems to be fixed. However, nothing was done to remedy cracks that were growing in size and number. The warranty representative told them nothing could be done and it was the plaintiffs' responsibility. The plaintiffs sued and settled with the manufacturer for $4,000, and with the installer for $27,000. They also sued defendant San Jose Advantage, alleging breach of warranty pursuant to the Song Beverly Act.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs made a demand (C.C.P. Section 998) of $1,500, plus attorney fees; the defendant made no offer.
Damages
The plaintiffs sought $32,160, which also included the cost of cleaning and caulking the cracks and painting the affected areas. The plaintiffs also requested that the jury impose a statutory penalty against the defendant for intentionally refusing to remediate the warranty items.
Result
The jury found in favor of plaintiffs and awarded them $32,160. It did not award a statutory penalty.
Other Information
The defendant moved to credit the judgment with the monies that plaintiffs received from the other defendants, the home's manufacturer and the installer. This motion is pending. Under the Song Beverly Act, the plaintiffs will seek to recover their attorney fees (less fees already recovered from the other defendants), totaling about $198,000 and costs, including expert witness fees.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390