James A. Hennefer, et al. v. Dan E. Butcher, et al.
Published: Jun. 8, 1996 | Result Date: Dec. 21, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 113245 – $33,611,200
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Torrance
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Andrew M. White
(Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)
Melvin N.A. Avanzado
(The Avanzado Law Firm APLC)
Defendant
Bartley L. Becker
(Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP)
Molly S. Murphy
(Office of the Attorney General)
Experts
Plaintiff
James W. Myers III
(technical)
Defendant
Cary P. Mack
(technical)
Craig P. Knickerbocker
(technical)
Laurence N. Sommer
(technical)
Facts
In 1977, the defendant, Dan Butcher, sold a 4.5 acre parcel of undeveloped land in Torrance, California ("the property"), to the plaintiffs, James Hennefer, Reese Milner, II and Milner Investment Corporation, as well as their predecessors. However, disputes arose as to the contract and its performance. The plaintiffs successfully sued Dan Butcher for specific performance and obtained a judgment in 1983 (which became final after his appeal was denied in 1986) requiring Dan Butcher to transfer the property to the plaintiffs. Shortly thereafter, the defendant, Mary Butcher (Dan Butcher's wife), allegedly consulted legal counsel (not a party to the suit filed a suit in her behalf seeking to set aside the decree for specific performance on the gounds that Mary Butcher's community property interest in the subject parcel had not been litigated by virtue of the decree for specific performance. The attorneys retained to represent Mary Butcher in that action filed a lis pendens in 1986. The lis pendens remained upon the property and continued to "cloud" title thereto until December of 1989. (Defendant Schulze was not involved with the initiation or prosecution of Mary Butcher's community property action. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants, Dan and Mary Butcher (the"Butchers"), with the assistance of their son-in-law, defendant Carl Robertson, II and their lawyers, defendant Herbert Schulze and later another defendant attorney and his lawfirm (settled), then filed four successive and frivolous lawsuits against the plaintiffs to tie up the property and prevent the plaintiffs from developing or selling the property. Every court in which the defendants' four lawsuits were filed dismissed each case with prejudice. Every appeal filed by the defendants resulted in affirmation of those dismissals. The plaintiffs claimed that virtually all of these underlying courts awarded sanctions or attorneys' fees against the defendants totalling almost $200,000. These courts allegedly described the defendants' conduct and their lawsuits as being in "bad faith," "frivolous," "vexatious," a "misuse of the courts and the judicial process," "prosecuted for an improper motive," "totally and completely without merit" and "solely for the purpose of harassment." The plaintiffs brought this action against the defendants based on malicious prosecution, abuse of process and interference with economic advantage theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The settlement discussions were not disclosed.
Damages
The jury concluded that the plaintiffs suffered $18,611,200 in compensatory damages caused jointly and severally by all the defendants. After finding malice and oppression on the part of defendants Dan E. Butcher and Carl W. Robertson, II, the jury awarded punitive damages in the amount of $12,000,000 against defendant Dan E. Butcher and $3,000,000 against defendant Carl W. Robertson, II.
Other Information
Costs of suit were awarded to the plaintiffs in the amount of $55,129.42, the compensatory damages were reduced by a confidential amount by virtue of a prior settlement with other parties and the compensatory damages award was reduced by $71,241.90 reflecting the amount of costs and attorney's fees paid by the defendants as sanctions in some of in the underlying actions. The original judgment was entered on December 28, 1995. The amended judgment reflecting the above reductions was entered on April 11, 1996, in the amount of $16,795,087.52 (compensatory damages, $12,000,000 (punitive damages against Dan Butcher) and $3,000,000 (punitive damages against Carl Robertson, II). Per the defendants, an appeal of the dismissal upon demurrer of defendant Butcher's action to establish title by way of a claim for adverse possession was unsuccessful. However, a subsequent writ resulted in two California Supreme Court Justices indicating their view that a hearing should be had in connection with the appellate court's ruling, along with a determination by the Supreme Court to decertify what had been a published opinion as to the adverse possession issue upon which the lawsuit had been based.
Deliberation
13+ hours
Poll
9-3 (malicious prosecution - M. Butcher), 11-1 (malicious prosecution - H. Schulze), 12-0 (abuse of process - D. Butcher)
Length
6 weeks
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390