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.

Torts
Declaratory Relief
Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations

Carl Lindros v. Jeffrey Ullman, et al.

Published: Oct. 11, 2014 | Result Date: Aug. 7, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC437756 Bench Decision –  Cross-defendant

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Facts

Plaintiff Carl Lindros entered into a Tenant in Common agreement with Rebecca Richards. Plaintiff paid the entire amount for the property and although Richards did not contribute, she received a 10 percent promotional interest for her part in the extensive renovation of the property. According to the agreement, Lindros was to receive a priority return of all his invested funds and a 15 percent annualized return on his invested funds from the sale or rental of the property and any additional funds would be split equally between Lindros and Richards.

However, Richards had had three judgments against her in three different, and unrelated, cases against defendants Jeffrey Ullman, Weddingpages.com, and William E. Whitlock. Ullman, Whitlock and Weddingpages each recorded an Abstract of their judgments. Richards then executed a quitclaim deed to the property to plaintiff. Plaintiff requested defendants voluntarily remove their Abstract of judgments from the property, claiming that since Richards only held a contingency interest on the property and the contingency failed to occur, defendants didn't actually have interest in the property. Defendants refused. Lindros then filed suit seeking quiet title and for declaratory relief, which resolved prior to trial.

Plaintiff ultimately dismissed his complaint against Ullman. Trial proceeded as an action for intentional interference with contractual relations brought by cross-complainant Ullman against cross-defendant Lindros.

Contentions

CROSS-COMPLAINANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Cross-Complainant alleged that cross-defendant intentionally interfered with a contract he had with a third party to acquire and develop and resell real property in the Hollywood area.

CROSS-DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Cross-defendant claimed that he was simply the lender and financial advisor for the third party and did not interfere with any contract between the cross-complainant and the third party.

Damages

The cross-complainant sought over $4 million in economic damages plus punitive damages.

Result

Judgment for cross-defendant Carl Lindros.


#108122

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

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