Robert and Carla Rawstron v. Ronald D. Wright, et al.
Published: Apr. 29, 1995 | Result Date: Mar. 31, 1995 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: BC084648 – $479,077
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Yehuda Wolfson
(technical)
Martin S. Greene
(technical)
Brian Jeff Jeff Grill
(technical)
Defendant
Allan Phillips
(technical)
Albert G. Presky
(technical)
Facts
In October 1991, Plaintiffs Robert and Carla Rawstron purchased a 6,700 square foot home in Northridge for $1,050,000. The home had originally been built approximately 30 years ago as a 2,500 square foot home, but in 1989 the then owner, Defendant Ronald D. Wright, had plans for remodeling and expansion created by a design professional and structural engineer. The plans included numerous elements specifically aimed at resisting the force of an earthquake. Wright took the permit as an owner/builder, but hired Defendant Tom D. Talley, a licensed general contractor, to do the bulk of the work, including the demolition, concrete, and framing. At the time of the sale to the Rawstrons, Wright delivered a copy of the remodeling plans and explained the scope of the work which had been done in 1989 and 1990. In early 1992, heavy rains created severe water damage to the home. The Rawstrons contacted Wright who subsequently sent Defendant Talley to the home in an effort to satisfy the Rawstrons. Talley failed to mend the situation and with each subsequent rainfall, the problems continued. Ultimately, in July 1993, the Rawstrons sued Wright, Talley, and several others for construction defects resulting in water intrusion. The January 14, 1994, Northridge earthquake changed the dynamics of this litigation. Shortly after the quake, the Rawstrons discovered that an entire wall had literally "blown" off the foundation during the quake. Virtually every window in the house was broken. A masonry chimney collapsed onto a neighbor's motor home, literally "squashing it." Construction professionals soon began examining the home and discovered that there were serious deviations from the plans and numerous Uniform Building Code violations. A collateral Defendant settled out for $25,000 prior to trial; Plaintiffs proceeded to trial against Defendant Talley.
Settlement Discussions
Plaintiffs contend that they demanded $400,000 and that Defendant Talley offered $75,000.
Damages
Plaintiffs claimed $408,108 for the cost of repair; $98,378 for additional living expenses (requested from Defendant Talley only).
Other Information
Defendant Wright was dismissed without prejudice subject to a separate arbitration agreement.
Deliberation
13 hours
Poll
12-0 liability, 10-2 damages
Length
6 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390