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 Estate
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Negligent Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage

Hillsdale Carwash, Inc. and Tan v. David Lee, Wendy Ng, and EJL dba Coldwell Banker Peninsula

Published: Dec. 29, 2007 | Result Date: Oct. 3, 2007 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CIV453418 Verdict –  $1,303,258 gross

Court

San Mateo Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Lawrence S. Viola
(Viola Law Firm PC)


Defendant

Kamin Kamali

David G. Finkelstein

Harold A. Justman


Experts

Plaintiff

Randall I. Barkan
(technical)

Defendant

J. Robert Taylor
(technical)

Facts

In October 2005, plaintiff Sek Keng Tan, 60 years of age, was president of Hillsdale Car Wash. Tan decided he wanted to sell his car wash business and sought the assistance of defendant broker David Lee. Tan's lease provided that the landlord of the property could terminate the lease if tenant sold its business. Tan was not the landlord but rather had a five-year lease with the option to renew and had leased the place for one year.

Lee asked Wendy Ng, an agent for EJL, a company doing business as Coldwell Banker Peninsula to assist with the sale. Lee found a buyer for the business. Tan's landlord then terminated the lease in November 2005 upon learning of the sale. In 2006, the landlord then sold Tan's business to the same buyer Lee had found for $800,000.

Tan sued Lee, Ng and EJL for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage resulting in economic loss. Plaintiff dismissed the negligent interference claim at trial.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Tan sued Lee, Ng and EJL for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage at the time of trial. Tan argued that Lee and Ng negligently handled the sale of his business by allowing the landlord to terminate his lease.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
A real estate broker testified for the defense that real estate agents and brokers have no duty to explain the legal ramifications of commercial leases to tenants. The defendants contended that Tan knew of the restrictive lease provision before he decided to sell the business.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiffs demanded $1.3 million. The defendant offered $10,000, indicated $15,000.

Damages

Tan claimed that he lost the sale of his business worth $1.2 million. He also claimed attorney's fees of $103,257.54. The defendants contended that the fair market value of the lease, and not the buyer's price in offer was the appropriate measure of damages. They also claimed the lease had no value.

Result

The jury found Tan 60 percent at fault and Lee 40 percent at fault. The jury found that EJL's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs' harm. And, that Wendy Ng acted outside the scope of its authority with EJL. EJL was found not liable. The jury awarded $1,303,258 to Tan (gross); $521,303 (net).

Deliberation

1.5 days

Poll

10-2

Length

five days


#117152

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

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