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
Fraud
Concealment

Don Zeppenfeld, Kathy Zeppenfeld v. Martin Reilley

Published: Jun. 7, 2005 | Result Date: Mar. 4, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: SCV226091 Verdict –  $178,000

Judge

Philip A. Champlin

Court

Sonoma Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Ira James Harris


Defendant

Leroy J. Lounibos Jr.

Candace H. Shirley


Experts

Plaintiff

Wes Daniels
(technical)

Facts

In March 1998, plaintiffs Don and Kathy Zeppenfeld bought a home from defendant Martin Reilley. The home was built on a vacant lot for defendant by licensed contractors, with the exception of the tile contractor. The work was supervised by the designer of the home, who did not have a contractor's license. The defendant subsequently sold the home to the plaintiffs when the construction was approximately 90 percent completed. Prior to submitting an offer, the plaintiffs noted that the windows were leaking. The defendant hired a licensed general contractor to fix the leaks. After close of escrow, the leaks reoccurred. The plaintiffs filed an action, alleging that the home contained certain plan and code violations and that the windows and decks leaked. The plaintiffs claimed the defendant failed to fully disclose these conditions or that he had used unlicensed workers to build the home. They further claimed that the defendant falsely promised that the leaks would be repaired and carry a one-year builder's warranty.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiffs made a demand of $160,000; the defendant's offer was $25,000.

Damages

The plaintiffs sought damages pursuant to Civil Code Section 3343, which should have been the difference between the purchase price and the actual value to the home at the time of the 1998 sale.

Result

The jury found in plaintiffs' favor and awarded them $178,000. The method the jury used to calculate the amount of damages is unknown.

Deliberation

1.5 days

Poll

12-0 (intentional fraud), 11-1 (concealment, false promise and negligent misrepresentation)

Length

18 days


#116550

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

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