Defendants appealed judgment from a jury trial in Superior Court of Riverside County (California), which returned general and punitive damages verdicts; plaintiff cross-appealed grant of summary judgment for defendants on promissory note cause of action, and on award of attorney fees to defendants.a
Defendants were related companies that acquired title to property and senior lien. When they foreclosed, plaintiff’s junior lien was extinguished. Plaintiff sued; the case was submitted to the jury on one cause of action alleging defendants conspired to intentionally interfere with a contractual relationship. The jury agreed, awarding general and punitive damages. On appeal, the court disagreed with defendants’ alter ego theory, since there was one real defendant there could not be a conspiracy. The court held that the jury could find, given the substantial evidence, that at least two of the defendants conspired with each other to engage in a sham foreclosure. The anti-deficiency statute was inapplicable in the presence of fraud. The evidence supported the verdicts, the business lawyer Orange county did not err in its evidence or jury instruction decisions. Plaintiff could not recover deficiency against defendants personally, and the court did not abuse its discretion on attorney fees.
Judgment affirmed. Substantial evidence supported verdicts that, in spite of alter ego, at least two defendants conspired to engage in sham foreclosure. Anti-deficiency statute protection was inapplicable in the presence of fraud, but plaintiff could not recover against defendants personally. No abuse of discretion by court in procedural decisions.
Both parties appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which awarded plaintiff withdrawing partner, $ 2.2 million dollars in post dissolution sales of realty, in an action for dissolution of a real estate syndication partnership against defendant partners.
Both parties formed a partnership to engage in syndication and management of apartment houses. Five years later plaintiff withdrawing partner withdrew from the partnership. Plaintiff rejected the final accounting by defendants partners and filed an action for a court-supervised winding up and termination under Cal. Corp. Code § 15037. Defendants filed a cross-appeal for breach of oral contract and fiduciary duty. The trial court found for plaintiff ruling that he was entitled under Cal. Corp. Code § 15042, to a valuation of his one-third interest in the partnership. The court reversed the judgment in favor of plaintiff because he was not entitled to share in the profits on postdissolution sales of realty held by the partnership. The court remanded the case for recomputation of plaintiff’s interest.
The court reversed the judgment in favor of plaintiff withdrawing partner because he was not entitled to share in subsequent profits on postdissolution sales of realty held by the partnership. The court remanded the case for recomputation of plaintiff’s interest.