For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
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.
Menu
  • Sign In

    • Spyglass Point 72 HOA v. Spyglass Point Ventures, et al.

    Nov. 27, 1993
    Verdicts and settlements
    Sign up for Daily Journal emails
    Breach of Contract
    Condominium Development
    Construction Defect

    Spyglass Point 72 HOA v. Spyglass Point Ventures, et al.

    Published: Nov. 27, 1993 | Result Date: Aug. 13, 1993 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |
    Case number: 653101 –  $1,658,060

    Judge

    Kevin W. Midlam

    Court

    San Diego Superior


    Attorneys

    Plaintiff

    Michael D. Dicks
    (Dicks & Coglianese LLP)

    William F. Rickelman


    Defendant

    Douglas R. McCorquodale

    Rebecca S. Ryan


    Experts

    Plaintiff

    Mary Lighterink
    (technical)

    Thomas R. Hayes
    (technical)

    Ted S. Merrill
    (technical)

    Michael Packard
    (technical)

    Ralph Jeffrey
    (technical)

    James T. Frost
    (technical)

    Defendant

    Rick Colia
    (technical)

    Lee C. Johnson
    (technical)

    Mark D. Hetherington
    (technical)

    Peter Poutney
    (technical)

    Stan Keiser
    (technical)

    Facts

    Spyglass Point is a 72-unit condominium development in La Costa, constructed by Defendants in 1989. The units sold for $89,000 to $125,900 per unit. Plaintiff homeowners complained of various alleged defects, including noise transmissions, ponding and leaking decks, violation of slope restrictions, et cetera.

    Settlement Discussions

    Both parties agree that Defendants made no offer and Plaintiffs made a 998 demand of $2,000,000.

    Damages

    The value of the damages claimed were unspecified. The Plaintiffs asked the jury to award $4,700,000; and Defendant asked the jury to award $255,000.

    Other Information

    Plaintiffs and some Cross-defendant subcontractors entered into pretrial settlements totaling $200,000.

    Deliberation

    4 days

    Poll

    11-1

    Length

    10 days


    #112399

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

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

    By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.