Michele Ader v. Michael J. Fox
Published: Feb. 12, 1994 | Result Date: Jan. 19, 1994 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: BC029058 – $104,386
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Drew E. Pomerance
(Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani LLP)
Defendant
Scott C. Haith
(Law Office of Scott C. Haith)
Experts
Plaintiff
Jerome Zerg
(technical)
Defendant
Thomas Lockett
(technical)
Marlene Stein
(technical)
Facts
On November 20, 1990, Plaintiff Michele Ader and Defendant Michael J. Fox entered into a contract for the purchase (by Plaintiff) of Defendant's residence, located in the Fryman Estates area of Studio City. During the course of Plaintiff's home inspection, numerous items were found to be in need of repair. Plaintiff submitted a list of approximately 30 repairs, all of which Defendant Fox agreed to repair. Fox did spend $15,000 for repairs. During the course of the escrow one of Southern California's worst frosts in history, caused severe damage to the landscaping of the property. Subsequently, Plaintiff discovered that a rare fungus was possibly killing cypress trees which lined the back of the property; Plaintiff demanded their replacement or payment; these trees had provided the property with valuable privacy and appeal. Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to an escrow amendment. Defendant Fox allegedly agreed to leave a sum of money in escrow to be used to replace the damaged landscaping and to effect certain repairs to the property. At the close of escrow, no monies were left in escrow to repair the landscaping, and certain repairs had not been completed. In addition, the Defendant had removed all of the damaged and diseased landscaping prior to the close of escrow, but did not replace any of it.
Settlement Discussions
Plaintiff contends that no meaningful settlement demands or offers were exchanged; however Plaintiff demanded $1,000,000 and Defendant offered $30,000 at the mandatory settlement conference.
Damages
Property damages of $175,000 were claimed at closing argument; unspecified damages for fraud and emotional distress; Plaintiff also sought unspecified punitive damages.
Injuries
Emotional distress.
Result
The jury found for Plaintiff on the beach of contract claim, only.
Other Information
A nonsuit was granted to all Defendants on Plaintiff's causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and conspiracy, resulting in dismissal of Douglas. The remaining claim for negligent misrepresentation as to Philpott was dismissed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to recover prevailing-party attorneys' fees as a result of the provision in the real estate contract which provides for same. Defendants Philpott and Douglas are entitled to recover their costs from Plaintiff. A nonsuit was also granted on Fox's counter-suit.
Deliberation
2 days
Poll
11-1 for Plaintiff on breach of contract, 12-0 for Defendant on fraud and negligent misrepresentation
Length
5 weeks
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390