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
Fiduciary Duty
Intentional Fraud

Andrew Alcon, et al. v. Starkweather and Obeid, et al.

Published: Mar. 4, 1995 | Result Date: Feb. 8, 1995 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: H1623604 –  $0

Judge

Richard A. Hodge

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

T. Gregory Lanier

Daniel W. Johnson
(Berglund & Johnson Law Group)


Defendant

A. Charles Dell'Ario


Experts

Defendant

George W. Brewster Jr.
(technical)

Facts

In March of 1989, Plaintiffs Andrew Alcon, his brother, and his parents, purchased a 6-percent undivided tenancy-in-common interest in a project intended to develop 235 acres of raw land in Fremont into an upscale subdivision from Defendants Starkweather and Obeid. Defendants Burdell Properties also purchased a similar 14.4-percent interest. In 1991, Plaintiffs discovered that Starkweather and Obeid had diverted project funds to other projects they sponsored. In 1992, the project was lost in foreclosure.

Settlement Discussions

Defendant Burdell contends its last offer was $50,000 and Plaintiffs' last demand of Burdell was $150,000.

Damages

$283,000 in investment losses; interest from 1989; and attorney fees.

Result

The jury found that no intent to defraud existed and returned a defense verdict. Starkweather and O'beid went bankrupt prior to trial and did not appear. The other investor Defendants and the project accountant settled for $38,250 before trial. The jury also returned a defense verdict for the Alcon Cross-defendants on Burdell Defendants' Cross-complaint for fraud.

Other Information

The Court held as a matter of law that no pre-investment duty existed from the Burdell Defendants to Plaintiffs, but that a fiduciary relationship existed when Plaintiffs became co-tenants. The Court instructed the jury on intentional concealment coupled with intent to defraud. Defendants Burdell's transaction counsel settled during trial on confidential terms.

Deliberation

9 hours

Poll

12-0

Length

10 days


#86526

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

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