Facts

Ann Glatt and Jay Putnam were in a romantic relationship, just before they were engaged to be married, when Putnam allegedly offered to have Glatt provide him money to use to buy and remodel the house they would live in together. According to Glatt, he told her then, and repeatedly later, that the money she provided him was her "nest egg" that he would return to her if they ever broke up. Putnam contended that the $70,000 Glatt contributed was a token contribution to the couple's living expenses over two years, and that Glatt agreed to get a job to assist with expenses, which she refused to do.

No written agreement memorialized the deal. Pursuant to the deal, Putnam bought a house, which he put in his name alone, and Glatt wrote three checks, between December 2006 and June 2007, that Putnam used to purchase and remodel the house.

Putnam sent an email to Glatt on Jan. 21, 2009, during a disagreement they were having during their relationship. At that point it appeared the relationship was over and Glatt would leave their shared home. Putnam wrote, "The other day I proposed paying back your $70,000 with $10,000 when you move and $2,000 a month until it's paid, and more if I can. As I said, this is open to discussion if you want. I told you I was happy to cover your expenses the past year and a half, without asking you to contribute this money. I said that, in case things didn't work out, I wanted you to be able to at least have that nest egg. . . " The email stated that Putnam intended the repayment of this money as an expression of regret that the relationship had failed, and that this was the "sentiment behind the gesture." In other words, his offer was intended as a gift.

After Putnam sent the January 21 email, Putnam and Glatt reconciled. Thereafter, Putnam ended the relationship in the end of July 2009, and required Glatt to move out of their shared house by the end of August 2009. On Sept. 1, 2009, once she moved out, Glatt asked Putnam to return her money, but he refused.

Glatt filed a complaint for breach of oral contract.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Putnam denied the agreement, and claimed that Glatt's payment was her gift to the relationship. To the extent he owed her any money, he claimed entitlement to an offset equal to the entire amount because of hundreds of thousands of dollars he put into the relationship.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff demanded $71,476. Defendant offered $25,000.

Result

The jury returned a unanimous verdict for Glatt for $71,476 plus $80,000 attorney fee and costs.

Other Information

The court sustained objections to most of Putnam's evidence regarding his alleged offsets, on the grounds that he failed to add up what he claimed as offsets and his offset testimony therefore would be speculation. On Sept. 28, 2010, Glatt filed a motion for $85,295 in attorney fees and costs pursuant to CCP section 2033.420, on the ground that Putnam should have but did not admit certain requests for admissions she served during litigation. The motion sought the reasonable cost of making the proof, including attorney fees, of what Putnam should have but did not admit. On Oct. 20, 2010, Putnam filed an opposition to the motion, on the grounds that he had a reasonable basis to have denied the requests for admissions, and the fees requested were excessive. The motion was heard on Nov. 30, 2010. On Dec. 6, 2010, the court issued its order granting the motion and awarding Glatt $80,000 in cost of proof fees and costs. According to the order, justification for the award included Putnam's conduct during discovery and trial. Putnam has appealed both the jury's verdict and the award of attorney fees. He contends that Glatt's claim of $85,000 in attorney fees to enforce an alleged contract involving an amount in controversy of a maximum of $71,000 is, on its face, unreasonable, and far exceeds the cost of proving several requests for admission, which represented only a fraction of plaintiff's case. FILING DATE: Oct. 30, 2009.