Wilt v. Durst
Published: Nov. 8, 2001 | Result Date: Oct. 5, 2001 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 810918 Verdict – $21,432,000
Court
Orange Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Steven R. Young
(Law Offices of Steven R. Young)
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Gary A. Waldron
(technical)
Robert K. Sall
(Sall Spencer Callas & Krueger, ALC)
(technical)
Barbara Noyes
(medical)
Harlene Miller
(technical)
Defendant
Sheldon S. Goodman
(technical)
Facts
The plaintiffs retained the services of the defendant as their attorney to act for them, initially, in connection with a
workout agreement with a bank. The defendant persuaded the plaintiffÆs late husband not to sign the
agreement, but, instead, to sue. The attorney subsequently filed a federal suit, which was dismissed by the
court as the defendant had failed to plead the clientÆs meritorious claims.
The attorney then filed a state court action, failed to oppose a demurrer, failed to amend, and again the court
dismissed the case. The attorney agreed to allow the foreclosure of plaintiffÆs home while they were in
bankruptcy. The lender evicted the plaintiffs one day after the plaintiffÆs husband was released from hospital
following back surgery and while the children were suffering from chicken pox.
For seven months, the family lived in a motel room as "homeless." While all these events were taking place,
the defendant entered into an unwritten joint venture agreement with the plaintiffÆs husband that they would
operate a bar in Kansas. During the course of not managing, $500,000 in revenues disappeared. The plaintiff
performed $266,000 in renovations to the bar that defendant was to pay for. The defendant refused to reimburse
the plaintiff and the plaintiffs, as a result, defaulted on the mortgages on their Kansas properties. They lost
those in foreclosure actions shortly after they had suffered the earlier foreclosure of their home in California.
As a result of stress and overwork, the plaintiffÆs husband died at age 48. The plaintiff
contended that the defendant committed malpractice and fraud, and he breached every duty he
had to them.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs demanded $500,000 at the conclusion of their case and subsequently offered to settle at $1 million during jury deliberations. The defendant offered $100,000.
Deliberation
one day
Poll
unanimous verdict on all 58 questions on special verdict
Length
23 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390