Facts

Plaintiff Brian Hassenflug obtained a quitclaim deed from his sister, Pamela Hassenflug, in 2003, giving him title to a commercial property both siblings had inherited from their mother. When he went to sell the commercial property, ten years later, the title company required Pamela to sign a new deed. Defendant refused to sign, and plaintiff lost the sale. Plaintiff filed suit against his sister and realtor Linda Lester-Barber.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that his sister was attempting to extort money from him and refused to sign unless he paid her additional money. Plaintiff claimed his sister's friend and relative, Linda Lester, conspired with Pam to extort money from him.

Plaintiff asserted claims for quiet title, for slander of title, and for intentional and negligent interference with business opportunity.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that plaintiff never recorded the quitclaim deed in his favor for almost ten years. When he went to sell the commercial property for $770,000 ten years later, the title company required Pamela to sign a new deed. Believing that her brother had recorded the deed ten years earlier, Pam questioned the necessity of signing a second quitclaim deed and, refused to do so unless she was allowed to see all the documents relating to the transaction that might affect her.

Defendants contended that plaintiff was to blame for failing to record the original quitclaim deed when it was first signed (or shortly thereafter) and for instructing the escrow and title companies not to cooperate with the requests of his sister. Defendants also contended that plaintiff was not damaged because he had received several offers for more than $770,000 after the transaction fell through, which he turned down.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff would not settle for anything less than $770,000.

Damages

Plaintiff sought punitive damages.

Result

Verdict for defendants Pamela Hassenflug and Linda Lester-Barber.

Other Information

Motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial were both denied. FILING DATE: June 11, 2013.

Deliberation

five hours

Poll

10-2 (slander of title), 10-2 (intentional interference with prospective economic advantage), 11-1 (negligent interference with business opportunity)

Length

two weeks