Placer Title Company v. Theodore L. Johanson; Theodore L. Johanson, A Professional Corp.; Kenneth Buckwalter; et al.
Published: Jul. 27, 1996 | Result Date: Jun. 5, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: SCV3355 – $0
Judge
Court
Placer Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Barbara A. Cotter
(Cook Brown LLP)
Karen M. Goodman
(Goodman & Associates)
Experts
Plaintiff
John M. Moore
(technical)
Defendant
Steven R. Walker
(technical)
Facts
Begining in 1988, the defendant attorneys, Johanson, Buckwalter and Koons, represented the plaintiff, Placer Title Company, in a negligence and fraud action arising out of foreclosures against four notes and deeds of trust. The plaintiff in the underlying action, Charles Hockaday, alleged that Placer Title Company wrongfully failed to protect his interest under the subject notes and deeds. Placer Title Company lost the underlying action in San Mateo county. An appeal was unsuccessful and the case ultimately settled for $2 million. The plaintiff, Placer Title Company, brought this action against the defendant attorneys, Theodore L. Johanson, Kenneth D. Buckwalter, Edward C. Koons, their individual professional corporations and their partnership, based on professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a settlement demand for $450,000 (within the defendant's insurance policy limits). The defendant made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $100,000.
Damages
The plaintiff asked the jury for an award of $2.74 million.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately one year and five months after the case was filed.Per the plaintiff, all four Placer County Superiro Court judges recused themselves from trying the case after one judge granted a motion for summary adjudication in favor of the defendants as to one part of one cause of action concerning Johanson's 1985 advice. the case was tried by retired judge, Geirge Nelson, sitting on assignment. Per the plaintiff, Judge Nelson refused to permit questions or admit into evidence the trial transcript of the underlying trial, or the deposition testimony of the key witness who allegedly changed her testimony at trial, on the basis that the transcripts were hearsay. Perthe plaintiff, the court also precluded admission of or any reference to opinion letters from the defendants to Placer Title which it deemed to be too prejudicial. Per the plaintiff, the court further precluded the president of Placer Title from testifying about his reliance on the contents of the opinion letters and admonished the presdient and counsel in front of the jury for attempting to introduce testimony about reliance on the information contained in the opinion letters. The plaintiff claimed that the court precluded the plaintiff's expert witness from testifying about his opinions of neglignce and breach of fiduciary duty based on the trial transcript in the underlying case because the court determine the trial transcript was hearsay.
Deliberation
1+ hours
Poll
11-1
Length
9 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390