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
Partition

Johnny Michael Taylor v. Raymond Taylor, Celia Taylor

Published: Apr. 17, 2010 | Result Date: Nov. 23, 2009 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC373428 Bench Decision –  Equitable Award

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

D. Scott J. Doonan


Defendant

Mary L. O'Neill


Facts

On April 12, 1979, Johnny MackTaylor and defendants Raymond and Celia Taylor bought property at 845, 847, and 847 ½ West 48th Street in Los Angeles, taking title as joint tenants. The owners consented to managing the property and costs were to split evenly between the three. On Aug. 15, 2005, Johnny Mack Taylor transferred, without consideration, his interest to his son, plaintiff Johnny Michael Taylor, and the prior agreement was to remain in effect. Later, plaintiff requested a sale and partition of the land. Defendants filed a cross-claim for an accounting.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff asserted that the titles showed that he owned a 50 percent interest in the property. He claimed that defendants breached their fiduciary duty to his father because they did not give an account of rents received, did not allocate rental income, and lived at the property without paying fair rental value. Plaintiff alleged that defendants had the opportunity to commit fraud because they knew that his father lacked reading skills and that plaintiff had confidence in his uncle.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants asserted that plaintiff's father resided on the property, but did not make payments for the costs and failed to pay fair rental value. Also, they claimed that plaintiff's father, who only owned a 1/3 interest in the property, was made a purchaser to simplify the loan process for the property.

Result

The court found that plaintiff owned a 1/3 interest and ordered a sale of the property with proceeds going to the parties. The court ordered a lien on plaintiff's proceeds amounting to $12,780 for 1/3 of losses suffered.

Other Information

FILING DATE: June 27, 2007.


#124175

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

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