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
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Interference with Economic Advantage

Wayne Carter v. IRES Company

Published: Nov. 22, 2008 | Result Date: Apr. 8, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 06CC12258 Bench Decision –  Defense

Facts

Plaintiff Wayne Carter entered into a written agreement to purchase a single-family home located at 2325 North Hesperia in Santa Ana. The sellers attempted to cancel escrow and terminate the agreement after the parties already signed.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that defendant Ryan Marshall, a California licensed real estate broker and CEO of defendant IRES Co., intentionally interfered with plaintiff's agreement to purchase real property. Defendant assisted the sellers in terminating escrow and their agreement with plaintiff.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendants contended that plaintiff, a real estate broker, informed sellers they would receive $130,000 for the home and that they would net $120,000. Sellers consequently decided not to sell the home to plaintiff. Defendants prepared another purchase contract for sale of the property to David Mojica and Cherokee Dille. The contract was conditioned on termination of the previous escrow with plaintiff. The contingency was eventually removed and the parties proceeded with the second sale.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed damages exceeding $200,000.

Result

Judgment was for defendants, as plaintiff's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The plaintiff was awarded $44,000 damages--the difference between the first and second sale prices--in a separate action against sellers. As such, plaintiff's damages claims were barred by collateral estoppel and/or res judicata. The defendants had no role in sellers' decision to cancel escrow and the written agreement with plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to prove intentional interference with contract, as defendants' acts were not deemed malicious or outrageous so as to warrant punitive damages.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Nov. 22, 2006.


#121337

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

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