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
Rescission
Seller's Fraud

Alan D. Purwin and Kathryn Purwin v. Martin Botwinick

Published: Jun. 13, 1998 | Result Date: Apr. 29, 1998 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CIV159019 Bench Decision –  $1,596,540

Judge

Marvin H. Lewis

Court

Ventura Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Cassondra L. Williams

Donald S. Gottesman
(Kulik Gottesman & Siegel LLP)


Defendant

John A. Demarest
(Hanger Steinberg Shapiro & Ash)

Robert E. Levine


Experts

Plaintiff

F. David Chavez
(technical)

Mark D. Hetherington
(technical)

Paul Bogseth
(technical)

Facts

On April 15, 1994, the Purwins purchased the subject property located in Malibu from defendant Martin Botwinick. The property consisted of two parcels of land, with one parcel improved with a house and a 160-foot retaining wall. Prior to April 15, 1994, the seller and/or his agent made representations to the Purwins: that the area was safe from landslides; the property was protected from soil slippage by the retaining wall; and the retaining wall was built up to code. After the Purwins purchased the subject property, they learned the house two doors away had slid down into the canyon due to an active landslide and was demolished by order of the county in 1983, the landslide encroached on the unimproved parcel of the subject property prior to their purchase, the retaining wall violated building codes, and the retaining wall was structurally unsound and would not protect their property. The plaintiffs brought this action against the defendant for rescission based upon the seller's and broker's intentional and negligent misrepresentation and non-disclosures.

Settlement Discussions

Prior to trial, the plaintiffs offered to settle with seller for $400,000. The defendant offered $7,500 to settle during trial.

Damages

The plaintiffs sought refund of the $1.5 million purchase price plus consequential damages.

Other Information

The decision was reached approximately two years and seven months after the case was filed. A settlement conference was held on Aug. 15, 1997, before the Hon. Robert Bradley of the Ventura County Superior Court. It did not resolve the matter.

Length

five days (Bench Trial)


#80144

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

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