Mark Carmody, Holly Carmody v. Stephen Bowman, Caryl Bowman, Gay Millgan & Company, Century 21 A Hart Realty Inc.
Published: Nov. 2, 2004 | Result Date: Aug. 30, 2004 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 01097833 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
Santa Barbara Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
David M. Grokenberger
(Rogers, Sheffield & Campbell, LLP)
Defendant
R. Chris Kroes
(McCarthy & Kroes)
Experts
Plaintiff
Mike Arnold
(technical)
Defendant
Justin Kojima
(technical)
Fran Hobby
(technical)
Facts
In August 2000, the defendants sold their residential property at 861 North Hope Avenue in Santa Barbara to the plaintiffs for $849,000. The real estate transaction included a transfer disclosure statement dated July 16, 2000 in which the defendants disclosed a shared driveway easement, utility easements, a spa set back encroachment, soil compaction, permanent stains on a household green carpet and a prior 1993 disagreement on the usage of a shared driveway easement between the defendants and the owners of 855 North Hope Avenue, Alan and Nina Boelsterli. In the transfer disclosure statement, no reference was made to a dog named Gus, owned by the Boelsterlis because as of July 2000, Gus had been gone for four years. Gus was given away in 1996, but after the defendants moved out, the Boelsterlis brought him back to the property and Gus bit the plaintiff Holly Carmody in August 2002. In September 2002, approximately two years after they had purchased the property, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for fraud and statutory liability under Civil Code, Section 1102 for failing to disclose nuisances in the neighborhood, specifically that "the neighboring property was occupied by persons who had a dog which was out of control, was a threat to persons on the property and had posed a threat for years to adjoining property owners." The plaintiffs also claimed that the defendants failed to disclose an easement problem. The plaintiffs did not sue the Boelesterlis.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs made a C.C.P. Section 998 offer of $45,000 which was rejected by the defendants. The defendants made no offer.
Damages
The plaintiffs sought between $113,500 and $250,000 in damages for general diminution in value of the property.
Result
The court granted the defendants' nonsuit motion on the fraud causes of action following completion of the plaintiffs' case in chief. The jury found no liability and indicated that they would have awarded zero dollars in damages.
Other Information
The defendants will bring a motion for costs and attorneys' fees.
Deliberation
five hours
Poll
11-1
Length
eight days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390