Confidential
Settlement – $79,600Judge
Court
Orange Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Michael P. Green
(Tofer & Associates)
William C. Kersten
(Kersten & Associates)
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Chris Bolter
(technical)
Marvin Silverman
(technical)
Tom Trojnar
(technical)
Defendant
James E. Willard
(technical)
Facts
In April 1992, the plaintiffs, a retired husband and wife, owned a fourplex in Anaheim. The plaintiffs alleged they were approached by the defendant agent, an employee of the defendant broker. The plaintiffs claimed the defendant agent offered to assist the plaintiffs in selling their home and the plaintiffs agreed to retain the services of the defendants agent and broker. The plaintiffs further claimed that the next day, the defendant agent returned with an offer executed by the defendant broker, on behalf of himself and a group of investors (the investors). The offer allegedly called for the plaintiffs to sell their fourplex to the investors and the defendant broker for $410,000, with a $65,000 down payment. The plaintiffs were to take back an all exclusive trust deed in the amount of $345,000. The plaintiffs asserted they were reluctant to enter into such a deal, however, the defendant agent allegedly assured the plaintiffs that there was no chance the investors would default as the investors were "all millionaires." Based on those alleged assurances, the plaintiffs agreed to take back a substantial amount of their equity in a second trust deed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs claimed they agreed to sell the property to the investors for $400,000, with the plaintiffs accepting $50,000 down payment, a first trust deed in the amount of $70,400, (representing the existing mortgage on the property), and the plaintiffs taking back a second trust deed secured by a note in the amount of $279,600, payable in interest only for 15 years. Less than one year after the sale was consummated, the plaintiffs claimed they were contacted by the defendant broker, who allegedly told the plaintiffs that the investors were urging him to default on the note due to the fact that the real estate market was declining and that continued ownership was not economically feasible. The plaintiffs alleged the defendant broker told them that the investors wanted them to reduce the interest rate on the note to give the investors incentive to continue ownership. The plaintiffs claimed they were initially hesitant to agree to the reduction in interest rate and asserted that the defendant broker continued to pressure the plaintiffs to agree to the reduction. In June 1995, the plaintiffs agreed to the reduction. Immediately thereafter, the defendan broker and investment group allegedly demanded another renegotiation of the note, this time in terms of a $75,000 reduction in principal. The plaintiffs claimed they refused and the defendant broker and the investors defaulted on the note. The plaintiffs then sued for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence and judicial foreclosure. Defendants contested all of these allegations. By January 1997, the property had a market value of $275,000. Defendants contested all of these allegations.
Settlement Discussions
Per the plaintiffs, they claimed they offered to return to the original agreement, with payment of attorney fees and payment of amounts due and owing, increased to return of the property and $40,000 cash at Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC), increased to return of the property and $79,600 cash at trial. The plaintiffs asserted that defendants offered nothing until the agreed upon settlement. Per the defendants, they claimed that at the MSC, defendants offered to retain ownership of the property and to insure payment to plaintiffs in the amount of $60,000.00, composed of $20,000 cash and $40,000 in a guaranteed note. Prior to the commencement of trial, Defendants claimed they agreed to settle for $79,600 in cash in exchange for plaintiffs taking a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure to the property, waiving $40,000 in past due interest, and waiving $50,000 in plaintiff's attorney fees.
Result
The settlement was reached approximately _____ years and ______ months after the case was filed. A settlement was held on ______/____/19___ before _________ (name) of ________________ (affiliation or court) resulting in ______________. EXPERT TESTIMONY: (if interesting) ANY COMMENTS ON THE JUDGE/ARBITRATOR/MEDIATOR ??
Other Information
The settlement was reached approximately one year and three months after the case was filed. Per the plaintiff, the defendant broker, the defendant agent and the defendant brokerage firm declared bankruptcy during the course of the litigation. This settlement was effective against only the investors. A settlement conference was held on Aug. 1, 1997 before Jerome L. Amonti, a private attorney. It did not resolve the matter. Per the plaintiff, defendants failed to designate an expert on the issue of negligence and real estate financing. Defendants' motion to augment their expert witness was denied. Defendants' petition for writ of mandate, directing the superior court to allow them to augment their expert list was denied.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390