Barbara Witas v. Susan Meyerhoff, Samuel Meyerhoff
Published: Sep. 4, 2002 | Result Date: May 13, 2002 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: SC064588 Verdict – $54,224
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Santa Monica
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Richard C. Gagliano
(Wolf, O'Connor & Myers)
Experts
Plaintiff
Daniel Auerbach
(medical)
Defendant
John Hochman
(medical)
Facts
The plaintiff, Barbara Witas, and defendant Samuel Meyerhoff began seeing each other in 1992. At that time,
Sam was still married to defendant Susan Meyerhoff but each defendant maintained separate residences and
romantic relationships with others.
The relationship between the plaintiff and Sam lasted eight years, during which they furnished a Beverly Hills
home purchased by the defendants.
Over the course of Sam's eight year relationship with the plaintiff, he regularly used monies from a family
owned and operated business named "Sport Cap" to finance their daily lives.
Due to business reversals, it became necessary for the Meyerhoffs to sell their Beverly Hills home. Since the
defendants held title to the house as joint tenants, Susan filed an eviction action against the plaintiff.
Before the eviction could be ordered, though, Sam, who was an attorney, executed a deed in an attempt to sever
the joint tenancy. In the deed, Sam granted both defendants a half interest in the home as tenants in common.
Sam then gave the plaintiff a deed granting her half of his half interest in the home.
The sheriff then, acting on the eviction order, locked the plaintiff out of the home and refused to let her inside to
get her belongings.
Sam moved to San Francisco and instructed Susan to take his possessions out of the home, which she did.
Defendants Sam and Susan remain married but maintain separate residences and relationships.
The complaint in this action was based on a property ownership dispute regarding both the home at 3063 Deep
Canyon Dr., the "good faith" offers made by Sam to the plaintiff, and the personal items of property contained
therein.
Plaintiff alleged that she owned an undivided one-quarter ownership interest in that property, and that she was
entitled to her share of the remaining proceeds from the sale of the real property which were held in escrow,
totaling about $176,000.
The equitable causes of action were partition of real and personal property and good faith improver. The
partition action requested partitioning of the interest of all the parties to the real property and personal property.
The complaint listed 61 categories of personal property that were at issue, which were mostly high end home
furnishings purchased during Sam's and Barbara's trips to Israel, Hong Kong, Italy, London and elsewhere.
Conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, defamation, breach of oral contract
and negligent misrepresentation were also alleged.
Only the first four claims relate to Susan and only the first two and last two claims relate to Sam.
Barbara claimed that she incurred emotional distress as a result of the wrongful eviction and removal of her
property.
Regarding defamation, she further claimed that her credit history was ruined due to the eviction action that
Susan filed. She claimed that she had difficulty in renting an apartment subsequent to the eviction.
The invasion of privacy claim was based on the contention that after the "lock out," Susan reviewed and
removed mail, financial records and other personal items from the Beverly Hills home.
Defendant Susan Meyerhoff filed a cross-complaint against plaintiff Barbara Witas for equitable relief for quiet
title, removing cloud on title, cancellation of instrument, partitions of real property, constructive trust, statutory
violation under Family Code Section 1101, claim and delivery and conversion.
The cross-complaint sought to recover as community property personal gifts given to the
plaintiff by Sam Meyerhoff.
Settlement Discussions
Plaintiff's demand at mediation was $110,000 plus return of personal property valued at $221,000. Shortly before trial, the plaintiff served a C.C.P. 988 offer to Susan in the amount of $250,000, and to Sam in the amount of $250,000.
Damages
Psychological trauma, mental anguish, wrongful taking of personal property, and wrongful eviction.
Result
The court ruled that the first through fourth causes of action of the cross- complaint were moot, except in regards to monetary damages. The court also found that, even though the Meyerhoffs had not filed for separation, they were essentially separated because they had maintained separate residences since November 1992, they had each taken on a new partner and established long-standing relationships. The court also formed its judgment based on the fact that Sam and the plaintiff took numerous vacations with each other and that Sam had put the plaintiff in his will. The court also found that, since Sam was living separate from his wife since 1992, all of his earnings and accumulations from that date forward were his separate property and gifts made to the plaintiff during that time were not community property. The court found that cross-complainant Susan's argument that the plaintiff had failed to rebut the presumption of community property under Family Code 2581 was inaccurate. "That presumption applied to property acquired 'during marriage'," wrote the court, "Upon a finding that the Meyerhoffs were living separate and apart, section 771 applies." The court stated that the cross- complainant's claim for damages relating to the delay in closing escrow under Family Code section 1101 applied to Sam and not the plaintiff. "Family Code section 1101 creates a cause of action for damages against the offending spouse," wrote the court in the statement of decision, "not a third party." The court also noted that "the delay in closing was due also to Susan Meyerhoff's refusal to close. There is no evidence that [the plaintiff] refused to sign the deed." The court stated that by not submitting a verdict to the jury on conversion claims, the cross-complainant had waived her right to that claim. The court granted Susan's motion for nonsuit as to causes of action for defamation and invasion of privacy. The court also granted Susan's motion for directed verdict as to the equitable claim for good faith improver, for which the plaintiff demanded $86,000. The jury returned a defense verdict as to plaintiff's causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence, as to defendants Susan and Sam. The jury awarded the plaintiff $850 against Susan for conversion. The jury also awarded the plaintiff $53,373.90 against Sam for negligent misrepresentation. The court also partitioned personal property, awarding the plaintiff items valued at least $75,000.
Other Information
The court awarded the return of a number of items of personal property in connection with plaintiff's partition claim, including a Venetian glass lamp, a Tiffany lamp, a refrigerator, a piano and an antique piano scarf, Spode china, and two basset hound stools.
Deliberation
two days
Length
two weeks
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390