Morning Sun Development, Roy and Paula Harrow v. Mamian Construction, Gary and Manoosh Mamian, et al.
Published: Jun. 28, 1997 | Result Date: Jan. 23, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: SC032936 – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Santa Monica
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Bruce D. Rudman
(Abdulaziz, Grossbart & Rudman)
Defendant
Facts
On Oct. 1, 1987, plaintiff Morning Sun Development, a developer, entered into an agreement with defendants Gary and Manoosh Mamian and Mamian Construction (Mamian) for the construction of a two-unit condominium project on the beach in Malibu. The builders claimed that in exchange for acting as general contractor in building the complex, plus $300,000, Mamian was to receive one of the completed units. The developer claimed that Mamian was to receive the unit at cost that the plaintiffs were to repay a $506,000 loan on the Mamian unit. The builders claimed that after completion of the construction, the developer failed to convey the unit. The developer claimed that the builder failed to settle the accounting and purchase the unit. The plaintiff developer and its majority shareholders brought this action against the builders based on breach of contract, fraud, specific performance and quiet title theories of recovery. The builders cross-complained against the developer for money owed for construction and specific performance of the agreement.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs/cross-defendants made a settlement demand for $500,000. The defendants/cross-complainants made a settlement offer of a waiver of costs (per the defendants) or no offer per the plaintiffs).
Damages
The plaintiffs/cross-defendant developers claimed $1 million in damages for construction, carrying-costs and use of the premises. The cross-complainant builders claimed $840,000 in damages for the market value of the unit.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately two years and seven months after the case was filed. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Three settlement conferences were held before Judge Robert Thomas of Los Angeles Superior Court. They did not resolve the matter. The jury found that there was a joint venture between the parties, thus exposing the plaintiffs/cross-defendants to punitive damages for breach of fiduciary duty. However, the court found that there was no evidence of malice or oppression to warrant punitive damages, and none were awarded. The jury was waived and dismissed after phase 1 of the trifurcated trial, in the interest of time. The court then performed an equitable accounting and entered an equitable judgment whereby the defendants were to pay the plaintiffs $320,000 (per the plaintiffs) or $240,000 (per the defendants) and the plaintiffs were to deliver title to the unit free and clear, or pay the defendants $578,000 and retain title to the unit subject to its loan. Per the defendants, the plaintiffs did not convey title, nor did the defendant pay the $240,000, and the court entered a second equitable judgment whereby the defendants were to pay the plaintiffs $302,000 and the plaintiffs were to deliver title free and clear, or pay the defendants $578,000. The final judgment of $578,000 was entered after the plaintiffs failed to enter the escrow ordered as part of the equitable accounting.
Deliberation
2 days
Poll
12-0 (existence of joint venture)
Length
18 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390