Charles F. Cook and Jean E. Cook, Trustees of the Cook 1996 Revocable Trust, and Susan L. Mulholland, et al. v. M. Stephen Coontz, Coontz & Matthews
Published: Aug. 20, 2002 | Result Date: May 3, 2002 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 00CC14440 Verdict – $1,011,170
Judge
Court
Orange Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Mark L. Tuft
(Womble Bond Dickinson US LLP)
(technical)
Lore Hilburg
(technical)
Robert E. Palmer
(technical)
Defendant
Paul J. Weinberg
(technical)
Keith Pearson
(technical)
Facts
In 1997, the plaintiffs purchased a plot of land in San Clemente on which they sought to build their retirement
home.
In escrow, the plaintiffs learned that a neighbor had previously threatened a lawsuit over a portion of the
property.
While going through the entitlement process in 1998 and 1999, the plaintiffs were made aware of a problem
with their title.
According to the defendants, the plaintiffs contacted them and they indicated that they would obtain a title
report.
The plaintiffs contended that the defendants said they would obtain new insurance protecting the plaintiffs
from future lawsuits.
The defendants contended that they said the report would be used in the entitlement process.
Thereafter, the defendants represented the plaintiffs in front of the San Clemente local government.
Once the plaintiffs' building plans were approved, the plaintiffs were sued by their neighbors who had
previously claimed an ownership interest in the plaintiff's property. The defendants had not obtained title
insurance protecting the plaintiffs from their claims. As a result, and although the plaintiffs ultimately
prevailed in that action, the plaintiff incurred substantial expenses in defending themselves in the underlying
lawsuit.
In this action, the plaintiffs sought to recover those fees and costs along with other
resulting damages.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs offered to settle the case for $800,000 before trial. The defendants offered $500,000 during trial, according to the plaintiffs. According to the defendants, only $150,000 was offered during trial.
Other Information
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs on the fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and professional negligence. The plaintiffs were awarded $561,171 to compensate them for attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defending the underlying action out of their pocket. The amount was reduced to $311,171 due to failure to mitigate. The jury further awarded Charles Cook $50,000 in general damages, Jean Cook $150,000 in general damages and Susan Mulholland $500,000 in general damages. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, by a 12-0 vote, on the breach of contract claim. Post trial, the plaintiffs were awarded an additional $395,449 in costs including a post judgment award of $368,016 in attorneys' fees, for a total award of $1,406,621. According to the defendants, the causation instruction given to the jury was based on Viner v. Sweet, a 2001 Court of Appeal decision under review by the California Supreme Court. The plaintiffs contend that the Viner decision is irrelevant and that the correct causation instruction was given. The defendants have filed a Notice of Appeal.
Deliberation
four days
Length
five weeks
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390