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.

Real Property
Property Damage
Failure to Disclose

Timothy Brausam, et al. v. Tamara Scott, et al.

Published: Feb. 1, 2005 | Result Date: Nov. 18, 2004 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CIV214698 Verdict –  $0

Judge

Steven E. Hintz

Court

Ventura Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Dennis Neil Jones
(Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold LLP)


Defendant

Gregory J. Ramirez
(Law Office of Gregory J. Ramirez)


Experts

Plaintiff

Alan Forbess
(technical)

James DaPra
(technical)

Defendant

Larry Larson
(technical)

John Handy
(technical)

Facts

The plaintiffs purchased a residential property from the defendants in July 2002. Five days after moving in, they complained of water leaks and extensive mold that had not been disclosed in the Transfer Disclosure Statement filled out by the defendants. Both parties had been represented by realtors in the transaction.

Settlement Discussions

The defendants tendered a C.C.P. Section 998 offer to compromise in the amount of $15,000 prior to the trial. The plaintiffs initially demanded $120,000 prior to the filing of the lawsuit, reduced to $30,000 approximately one month pre-trial.

Other Information

The plaintiffs withdrew their personal injury claims and dismissed their breach of contract claim prior to trial. There were two home inspections performed on the property prior to the close of escrow. The defendants called the plaintiffs' former realtor as a witness, who testified that she never saw or detected any evidence of water damage or mold that was not brought to the attention of the plaintiffs, and that she had advised the plaintiffs to have a mold test conducted before the close of escrow, which they chose not to do. The plaintiffs' theory was that the defendants either knew, or should have known, about the water leaks and resulting mold. The defendants' theory was that the plaintiffs had purchased a beach property which they could not afford to remodel, and had brought this suit in an attempt to pay for the remodel work they had undertaken. The plaintiffs' counsel stated that an appeal is planned.

Deliberation

three hours

Length

10 days


#114377

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

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