Facts

On Aug. 4, 2012, plaintiff Gregory L. Fox entered into a residential purchase agreement with defendants Todd H. Katzman, and Kristine A. Katzman, for a 7,700-square foot custom home in the Cowan Heights/Lemon Heights area of Orange County. Fox sued the Katzmans, claiming he was misled as to the conditions and defects of the property.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff claimed that the Katzmans failed to disclose certain defects in the home and at the property prior to the close of escrow such as rats, roof, dry rot, backyard drainage issues, mold, among others. Plaintiff claimed he paid $2,300,000 for the property.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The Katzmans contended that the defects of which plaintiff complained were not visible to or known to them, although prior to the close of escrow, plaintiff had reasons to be suspicious about a couple of defects based on his own sense of smell, a pre-close of escrow disclosure by Katzman of mold on the outside of the home and the termite report. The Katzman defendants contended that the defects were hidden behind walls, under flooring of various types, below the surface of the ground in the backyard and, therefore, could not have been disclosed because they were not known.

Settlement Discussions

Early on in the case, the Katzman defendants made a $50,000 CCP 998 offer to settle. That offer was never accepted. The parties attended one formal mediation and one Mandatory Settlement Conference. No settlement could be reached. According to defense, Fox demanded $900,000.

Result

Defense verdict on breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation and concealment claims.

Other Information

Plaintiff also sued the sellers' listing broker/agent for negligence and non-disclosure and reached a pre-trial $100,000 settlement, plus plaintiff obtained an assignment of all the listing broker's express indemnity rights against the sellers. Plaintiff thereafter issued a CCP section 998 offer to the sellers in the amount of $149,999.99 inclusive of fees and costs, which was not accepted. According to plaintiff, both sides are expected to file post-judgment motions, and plaintiff will pursue the assigned express indemnity claims against the sellers. FILING DATE: Sept. 9, 2013.

Deliberation

1.5 hours

Poll

12-0 (breach of contract), 9-3 (negligent misrepresentation), 12-0 (intentional misrepresentation), 12-0 (concealment)

Length

nine days