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.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Professional Malpractice
Lender Liability

Aames Home Loan v. Bel-Air Home Loan, et al. (Complaint); Sara Hurtado v. Max Kessler and Aames Home Loan, et al. (Cross-complaint)

Published: Sep. 30, 1995 | Result Date: Jun. 15, 1995 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC032022 –  $80,000

Judge

William Huss

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Experts

Facts

On September 20, 1990, Cross-complainant Sara Hurtado, an 80-year-old widow, was delinquent on her $500 monthly mortgage payments; the loan was a $26,000, 15-year loan with Aames Home Loan. Defendant Vladimir Klinksik (Bel-Air Home Loan) approached Mrs. Hurtado to refinance the loan with a $50,000, one-year loan. Klinksik acquired her signature on unfinished loan documents and a blank note and deed of trust; Klinksik then had Cross-defendants Max and Marilyn Kessler fund the loan. But, prior to the funding, Mrs. Hurtado and her family allegedly delivered a handwritten notice of cancellation and intent to rescind the loan to Klinksik. However, Cross-defendant Kesslers, allegedly unaware of Hurtado's rescission, funded and recorded (through escrow) the loan the next day. Mrs. Hurtado was unable to pay the $50,000 within the year and returned to Aames Home Loan and acquired a $108,000, two-year loan. When Aames Home Loan sent the pay-off check to Bel-Air Home Loan, Klinksik ran off with the money and thereafter was unable to be located by any of the parties to the lawsuit.

Settlement Discussions

Cross-complainant Hurtado contends she demanded $50,000 and cancellation of the loan and Cross-defendants made no offers.

Damages

Hurtado claimed $198,000 in delinquent loans and the foreclosure on her house.

Result

The jury found for Kessler on the matter of disparagement of title.

Other Information

Cross-defendant Aames settled out on the first day of trial for a confidential sum. The Court found that the escrow was a sham and that Kessler was an active participant in the sham; and so the Court rescinded the loan and awarded Mrs. Hurtado attorney's fees.

Deliberation

1+ days fraud and duress, 1 day disparagement of title

Poll

12-0 undue influence by Klinksik, 11-1 duress by Klinksik

Length

15 days


#109068

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

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