 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Copyright © 2000 Trials Digest Publishing, Inc. SELLER OF 2,000 ACRES SEEKS RETURN OF LAND AND REFORMATION OF CONTRACT AND GRANT DEED
REAL PROPERTY Purchase-Sale: Residential Property KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Leisure Industries Inc. v. Hlavacek, No. 229478. Raul Rosado. Jury trial; 8 days. Verdict/judgment: 12/18/97 VERDICT/JUDGMENT: DEFENSE Judgment for defendants as to plaintiff's claim for reconveyance of 2,000 acres of land in Tehachapi. Judgment for defendants/cross-complainants on claim for negligent misrepresentation --$300,000 awarded. Vote: Unanimous. Deliberations: 3 hours. TRIAL COUNSEL Plaintiff: Brian Simms, Lofton, DeLancie & Nelson, San Francisco. Rhonda Nelson, Lofton, DeLancie & Nelson, San Francisco. Defendant: Gayle L. Eskridge, Eskridge Law, Torrance. Nicholas W. Hornberger, Hornberger, Ghazarians & Brewer, Los Angeles. FACTS/CONTENTIONS According to defendant: Defendants were sued by plaintiff for the return of 2,000 acres near Tehachapi which had been conveyed to them by plaintiff. The plaintiff was Leisure Industries Inc., a company under the control of the RTC and FDIC. The defendants were Leopold Hlavacek and Vera Hlavacek, as trustees for VESA 1 Trust. The land in dispute was valued at $275,000 and defendants had spent $380,000 building a house on it. Defendants filed a cross-complaint alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation relating to a promise plaintiff made during the transaction when plaintiff removed 185 acres from the deal with no reduction in price and assured defendants that it had thoroughly reviewed the title report and that there would be no more changes. Plaintiff alleged that it had meant to convey only 9,200 acres rather than the 11,200 acres which were actually conveyed to defendants. Plaintiff sought reformation of the contract and the grant deed, arguing that it was entitled to relief under the law of unilateral mistake. Plaintiff claimed it had mistakenly conveyed 2,000 extra acres and that defendants had known or suspected the mistake. Defendants contended that they always intended to purchase the property described in the legal description (which happened to be 11,200), that they did not know or suspect plaintiff's confusion and that any mistake made by plaintiff was the result of plaintiff's gross negligence. CLAIMED INJURIES NA CLAIMED DAMAGES According to defendant: Return of 2,000 acres. SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS According to defendant: Demand: $350,000. Offer: $150,000. TRIAL EXPERTS Plaintiff: None. Defendant: Dan Ingram, real estate consultant, Tehachapi (805) 822-9019. Donald E. Ward, land surveyor, Tehachapi (805) 822-7521. Rae Lyon, document examiner, Pacific Coast Handwriting, Burbank (818) 771-0070. Kenneth Byrum, real estate attorney, Byrum, Holland, Brumfield & Dietrich, Bakersfield (805) 861-6191. COMMENTS According to defendant: The jury found that defendants were entitled to keep the 2,000 acres. Not only did defendants defeat plaintiff's claim for recovery of the property but the jury also awarded defendants $300,000 on their cross-complaint against plaintiff for negligent misrepresentation. It is also expected that defendants will be awarded attorney fees pursuant to a clause in the contract. The hearing on their motion for attorney fees and costs was set for January 5, 1998. No other post-trial motions had been filed as of the date of this report. Gayle L. Eskridge provided the information in this report. March 30, 1998 TRIALS DIGEST
|
||||||||||||||||
