Deborrah Dale v. Diamond Coast Federal, Inc.; Paul G. Mast; Ronald Mast; Michael R. Daniels, et al.
Published: Jul. 11, 1998 | Result Date: Mar. 3, 1998 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: VCV019624 Arbitration – $309,000
Arbitrator
Court
San Bernardino Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Facts
The claimant, Deborrah Dale, a 37-year-old woman, was hired by respondent mortgage brokers as a clerical worker in their home loan mortgage office. The claimant was approached by the respondent company president, her immediate superior, with a proposition to purchase a home. The respondent company president was aware that the claimant had just received a large divorce settlement and was looking to buy a home. The claimant was shown several properties that were supposedly owned by her employer. The property she ultimately purchased was represented to the claimant as being owned by respondent corporation. The claimant was told that the property had been taken back from a client who had defaulted on his loan which had been originated by the respondents. The respondents allegedly convinced the claimant that she did not need an escrow or title policy because the home had just been sold only a few months before and these things would just waste money. The respondents executed a corporation grant deed to the claimant. The claimant paid a $15,000 down payment, assumed a first trust deed of $80,000 and made payments directly to her employers for a supposed second trust deed in the amount of $222 per month which was deducted from her paycheck. (No promissory note was ever written and no trust deed drawn up. The plaintiff never received any truth in lending documents or tax reporting information.) Approximately one year later, the claimant left the employ of the respondents. Due to financial difficulties, the claimant put her home on the market. It was then that the plaintiff discovered two problems. An undisclosed drainage easement made 80 percent off the 2+-acre parcel unbuildable, and there was a man named Sergio Silesky, of whom she had never heard, on title to the property with her. The claimant was unable to sell the property and the property was lost in foreclosure. The claimant brought this action against the respondents based on fraud, breach of contract and quiet title.
Settlement Discussions
The claimant made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $75,000. The respondents offered nothing.
Damages
The claimant alleged $60,000 for each of the causes of action and requested punitive damages for fraud.
Other Information
The respondents all stipulated to binding arbitration. The award was reached approximately 5-1/2 years after the case was filed. The respondents filed a motion with the arbitrator and with the Superior Court to vacate and/or correct the arbitrator's award. Both motions were denied.
Length
1½ days (arbitration)
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390