Thomas Haddad, et al. v. Donald Valpredo, et al.
Published: Mar. 25, 2003 | Result Date: Nov. 1, 2002 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 245452RJA Verdict – $55,000
Judge
Court
Kern Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Facts
The plaintiff sought to recover unpaid rent due from the defendant on two farm leases on roughly 480 acres of land known as the Haddad Ranch. The defendant contended that he and the plaintiff orally agreed to terminate the leases in June 2001 and at most, he owes the plaintiff rent until he gave up possession of the Ranch. The plaintiff disagreed that any oral agreement was made and contended that he and the defendant understood that any agreement to terminate the leases would have to be in a formal written contract. The plaintiff contended that the defendant refused to sign a proposed, written Lease Termination Agreement because, among other reasons, the proposed agreement contained a clause that the leases would be terminated only if the potential buyer of the ranch actually bought the property, and, if the ranch was not sold, then the farm leases would continue. The defendant also filed a cross-complaint against the plaintiff contending that the leases were terminated, that he could not plant his carrot crop on the Ranch and that he would have to bring the irrigation pipe in from the fields to be stacked and inventoried, and that the defendant would have to give up his option to purchase the Ranch. The defendant contended he agreed to this and took such actions. The defendant contended that he made arrangements to obtain other ground to plant carrots on and did grow his carrots on other ground that year. The defendant/cross-complainant contended that he was damaged on account of his reliance on the plaintiff's statements. The plaintiff disagreed, contending that he had told the defendant of the possible sale of the Ranch, asked if the defendant would be willing to vacate the Ranch early if the sale was completed, and agreed with the defendant that any agreement would have to be in a written contract negotiated through their lawyers. The plaintiff contended he told the defendant he would prefer to continue the leases and that if the defendant had to plant his carrot crop, he should so it. The plaintiff also contended that the defendant had no right to purchase the Ranch because he was in default under the Farm Leases. The plaintiff further contended that while the defendant could have grown the carrots on the Ranch, he chose to move then to other land that he already owned or controlled, at no additional cost to the defendant. The plaintiff finally contended that the defendant suffered no damages at all as a result of growing carrots on other land.
Settlement Discussions
One year prior to trial, the plaintiff indicated he would accept $80,000 to $90,000; the defendant offered $10,000. At the mandatory settlement conference prior to trial, the plaintiff demanded $80,000; the defendant offered $60,000, $30,000 immediately and $30,000 18 months later and without interest.
Result
The jury found that the plaintiff had orally agreed to early termination of the lease and awarded damages to plaintiff for breaches of the leases up to the point of termination of approximately $55,000. The court later awarded costs of $4,341 and attorney's fees of $23,472.
Deliberation
eight hours
Poll
12-0 (liability and damages)
Length
four days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390