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.

Breach of Contract
Deed of Trust
Promissory Notes

Sondra B. MacCullough v. William and Judith McDonald

Published: Jan. 20, 1996 | Result Date: Oct. 25, 1995 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: H1755383 –  $109,284

Judge

Michael E. Ballachey

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Irving J. Kornfield

Charles Novack


Defendant

Linda DeBene

Bonnie C. Maly


Experts

Plaintiff

Gregory Sterling
(technical)

Facts

In June, 1988, the plaintiff, Sondra B. MacCullough, foreclosed on a second deed of trust and the defendants (and others) took title at the foreclosure sale. The plaintiff alleged that she agreed to carry back a new second deed of trust to be subordinated to the new first deed of trust, the proceeds of which were partially used to pay off the old first deed of trust, to make interest payments on the new first deed of trust and second deed of trust, to demolish an existing service station and for architectural and engineering costs for a retail center. The new first deed of trust was foreclosed upon in December, 1993, eliminating the plaintiff's second deed of trust. The plaintiff sued for the deficiency as a "sold out" junior. The plaintiff brought this action based on a breach of contract theory of recovery.

Settlement Discussions

In February, 1995, (when plaintiff had incurred fees of approximately $12,000), the plaintiff demanded $85,000 and the defendants offered $40,000. The defendants made a C.C.P. º998 offer for a waiver of costs. The defendants later offered $20,000, which was increased to $50,000 before trial.

Damages

The plaintiff sought the principal of $80,000 (on the note) together with interest at 13% per annum from December 1, 1992, for a total of $109,284, which sum was the jury verdict.

Other Information

The verdict was reached approximately one year and six months after the case was filed. The note had an attorney's fee clause and, on December 15, 1995, the court added attorney's fees of $117,466 for a total judgment, including taxable costs, of $231,025. The judgment was satisfied by a compromise payment that was made by the defendants, while the defendants were in the process of appealing the jury instruction regarding what constituted a standard transaction.

Deliberation

5 hours

Poll

11-1 (plaintiff was vendor), 9-3 (transaction was not standard), 10-2 (plaintiff entitled to recover)

Length

15 days


#78630

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

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