This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

CONFIDENTIAL

Jun. 29, 2002

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Fraud

Confidential

Settlement –  $2,000,000

Judge

Ronald T.L. Young

Court

Napa Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Sandra J. Springs


Defendant

Gail F. Flatt


Facts

In 1983, the plaintiff and the defendant began a romantic relationship which blossomed into a
long-term relationship. In 1992, the defendant asked the plaintiff to resign from her marketing
position with a major San Francisco employer and move to Napa to live with him. The plaintiff
served as hostess to his friends, family and business associates and assisted him in his business
decisions, as well as traveling extensively together. In 1994, the defendant began to manifest a
wish to move to Monaco. The plaintiff was reluctant to emigrate and become totally dependent
on the defendant. In 1995, the parties moved to Monaco and also bought a villa in the south of
France. According to the plaintiff, the relationship became stormy and, in 2000, the parties
separated. The plaintiff instituted the suit alleging that the defendant had reneged on his
agreement to provide for her.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff demanded a combination of real estate and cash worth approximately $1 million. The defendant offered $285,000. The case ultimately settled for a package allegedly worth $2 million plus and involving $70,000 per annum for life; $200,000 cash and ownership of the villa in France.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed an unspecified amount for the emotional distress suffered.

Other Information

The case was bifurcated on the issue of liability and damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on three causes of action, support for life, negligent misrepresentation and negligent infliction of emotional distress.


#97667

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390