In this marital dissolution case, the wife appealed the denial of her motion to vacate a judgment that incorporated a settlement agreement she signed during a custody dispute. The agreement awarded her sole physical custody of the children but required her to relinquish nearly all community property claims, while including a provision under which the husband would forfeit a $100,000 note if he contested custody or support. The Court of Appeal reversed the denial, holding that the trial court failed to determine whether the wife's consent was coerced by duress and that the forfeiture clause risked improperly limiting judicial oversight of child welfare matters, consistent with precedents voiding agreements that divest courts of jurisdiction over custody. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the coercion claim.
This case is an appeal from a trial court award of $536,000 in attorneys' fees to plaintiffs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 after a class action challenging the prosecution and treatment of public inebriates under Penal Code section 647(f) in Los Angeles. The litigation produced court-ordered changes to incarceration and medical screening procedures that became final after affirmance by the California Supreme Court. The appellate court upheld the trial court's findings that the case conferred a significant benefit on a large class of persons and that equal apportionment of fee liability between the City and County was proper. It reversed and remanded, however, for the trial court to determine in its discretion whether time spent on unsuccessful theories was reasonably incurred and whether compensation for volunteered paralegal hours was appropriate based on market value.
In this case, the sellers of a tavern sought to recover from California's Real Estate Education, Research and Recovery Fund after a licensed broker mishandled an escrow, made misrepresentations, converted funds, and allowed the buyer to take possession without paying the purchase price, resulting in the loss of the business assets and an outstanding note. The trial court awarded the maximum $10,000 plus costs, but the Court of Appeal reversed. The appellate court held that Business and Professions Code section 10472 required the applicants to prove diligent pursuit of remedies against all potentially liable parties, including the broker's individual officers and employees, whose possible liability for negligent misrepresentation was supported by circumstantial evidence; the applicants' failure to make any effort to sue, depose, or investigate those individuals meant they had not met their burden of showing due diligence.
The Cayleys sued their neighbors, the Nunns, for slander after the Nunns allegedly made false statements about illegal wiretapping while circulating a petition to support their application for a height variance before the city council. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Nunns on the ground that the statements were absolutely privileged, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court reasoned that Civil Code section 47 provides an absolute privilege for publications made in legislative or judicial proceedings or in the course of other official proceedings authorized by law, and that this protection extends to preparatory communications such as petition circulation when they have a logical connection to the proceeding and are made to achieve its objects.
This case involved real estate brokers suing the promoters and managers of a limited partnership for breach of contract and fraud after the brokers located a buyer for an apartment building but received a reduced commission in the form of a note, while the defendants took a separate and larger commission for themselves without disclosure. The jury returned a verdict splitting the total commissions between the parties, but the trial court granted a new trial limited to damages based on perceived attorney misconduct during closing arguments. On appeal, the court reversed the new-trial order and affirmed the judgment, reasoning that sustained objections were roughly equal on both sides and that a biblical reference in the plaintiffs' closing argument did not improperly appeal to the jury's passions.
This case involved a dispute over the termination of a commercial sublease for retail space after the buyer of the underlying property, Northridge Hospital Foundation (N.H.F.), arranged to end the master lease with the original tenant, W.T. Grant & Co. Pic 'N' Save (P.N.S.), the sublessee, claimed it retained rights to extend the sublease under its terms and sought declaratory relief, damages, and an opportunity to amend its cross-complaint to add a tort claim for intentional interference with contractual relations. The trial court ruled for N.H.F. after a bifurcated trial, holding that a clause in the sublease providing for simultaneous termination upon any end to the master lease was enforceable under its plain language, that N.H.F. had no duty to extend the overlease, and that P.N.S.'s proposed amendment was properly denied. On appeal, the court affirmed, interpreting the contract language as requiring termination of the sublease and rejecting arguments based on laches, statutes of limitations, and waiver under the parties' status quo agreement. The decision rested on principles of contract interpretation where extrinsic evidence was limited and on procedural rules governing amendments to pleadings.