Appellant property owner appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California), which reduced the amount of damages awarded to her in her action against respondent real estate brokerage for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Appellant also challenged the trial court’s failure to award prejudgment interest.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. shares more about CACI Negligence per se
Overview
Appellant property owner purchased a motel. Respondent real estate brokerage, which drafted the exchange agreement and handled the transaction, failed to disclose that a second deed of trust encumbering the motel had an acceleration clause and appellant lost the motel at a foreclosure sale. Appellant sued respondents for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. A jury returned a verdict in favor of appellant for $ 85,735. The trial court granted respondent’s motion for a new trial on damages and on retrial, damages were reduced to $ 25,834. The trial court also declined to award appellant prejudgment interest. The court modified the trial court’s judgment to award appellant $ 55,761.84 in damages and affirmed. The court held that where there was a fiduciary relationship between the victim and perpetrator of a fraud, damages were measured by Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3333, 1709 and that appellant was entitled to the fair market value of the motel and the expenditures she incurred in her efforts to forestall the foreclosure. The court also held that under Cal. Civ. Code § 3288, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s request for prejudgment interest.
Outcome
The court modified the judgment that reduced the damages awarded to appellant property owner in her action for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty against respondent real estate brokerage because appellant was entitled to damages in an amount equal to the fair market value of the property she lost plus the expenditures she incurred trying to forestall the loss. The court affirmed the denial of prejudgment interest.
