Jeffrey and Stephen Kaplan v. Brad Barcus Development Co., Inc., et al.
Published: Feb. 24, 1996 | Result Date: Oct. 11, 1995 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: BC082097 – $145,315
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Alan J. Carnegie
(Law Offices Alan J. Carnegie, APC)
Experts
Plaintiff
Anthony Hernandez
(technical)
John Caufield
(technical)
James Rowlands
(technical)
Defendant
Jack Vigil
(technical)
Leroy Crandall
(technical)
Ken Gladney
(technical)
Ray Kahn
(technical)
Facts
In June of 1989, the plaintiffs, Jeffrey and Stephen Kaplan, bought a bare, hillside lot in Pasadena from Brad Barcus Development Corporation, Inc. ("BBDCI") and William Bradley Barcus ("WBB") and contracted with BBDCI to design a custom home to be built on that lot. In May of 1990, the plaintiffs contracted with defendants WBB and BBDCI to build the custom home pursuant to the June 1989, design contract. The plaintiffs contended that the home the defendants represented would be built was not built. They contended that the actual home had fewer square feet, less desirable features, was not completed on time and was over budget. The plaintiffs also contended that the home suffered from various defects including erosion problems and roof leaks. The plaintiffs further contended that the defendants misrepresented the house to be constructed; misappropriated materials; and charged for services which were not provided. The defendants contended that the size and features of the home were as represented and were restricted/prescribed by the city design commission and building department. The defendant also contended that the city of Pasadena issued a conditional use permit for the lot which limited construction to a 3,000 square foot home with a 600 square foot attached garage. The defendants further contended that the erosion occurred as a result of plaintiffs' failure to complete landscaping and altering the drainage system. The defendants argued that there was a greater cost due to mandated changes and extras requested by the plaintiffs.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs demanded $400,000 which, per the plaintiff, included attorneys fees and costs. The defendants offered $5,000 and dismissal of the cross-complaint.
Damages
Per defendants, the damages were $285,900 (cost of repair to plaintiffs' home); $426,010 (fraud); and $1,200,000 (rescissionary measure). Per the plaintiffs, the Kaplans alleged $250,000 (compensatory damages) and $900,000 (rescissionary damages) and punitive damages in their complaint. The defendants/cross-complainants, BBDCI and WBB, asked the jury for $60,000 at the time the matter was submitted to the jury.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately two years and five months after the case was filed. In a trial before the court, it was determined that WBB and BBDCI were alter egos. Attorneys' fees motions have not yet been heard. By the time that the matter went to the jury, most causes of action in WBB's and BBDCI's cross-complaint had been disposed of, either by non-suit or dismissal.
Deliberation
5 days
Poll
12-0 (against defendants on a general verdict), 11-1 (for defendant, Brad Barcus Development Company on fraud) and 12-0 (for cross-defendants on the cross-complaint)
Length
30 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390