 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Salyer v. 396 Investment Co.5/17/2005
he amount of the offset, and our review of the record indicates that the court itself did not, on July 3, 2002, articulate an offset amount with respect to the Beyers. Furthermore, the reporter's transcript of the July 3, 2002 hearing indicates that the court was lacking in clarity with respect to the exact manner in which offsets should be made. However, by subtracting the total damages award from the amount of the verdict, it is apparent that the offset reflected in the judgment is $157,388.20. We observe that this amount is equal to the $100,315.58 settlement amount the Beyers received from 396, plus the $57,072.62 amount 396 paid to cancel the Beyers' mortgage debt on the property.
Anaheim contends the correct amount of the offset should have been $328,606.09, which equals the $100,315.58 settlement payment, plus the $228,290.51 amount owing on the Beyers' mortgage when the debt was cancelled. As Anaheim sees it, the Beyers received a $171,217.89 windfall because the portion of the damages that they collected with respect to their real property exceeded the value of their equity in the property. As we have previously discussed, we agree with Anaheim that the rule of Smith, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d 266 should be applied to prevent the receipt of a windfall. We remand the Beyer judgment and direct the trial court to enter a modified judgment reflecting an offset in the amount of $328,606.09.
(c) Wei Judgment
Anaheim claims that the judgment in favor of the Weis contains an erroneous offset. The October 2, 2002 judgment provides a verdict, states that the court made findings pertaining to offsets on July 3, 2002, and then provides a final damages award. The judgment itself does not articulate the amount of the offset, and our review of the record indicates that the court itself did not, on July 3, 2002, articulate an offset amount with respect to the Weis. Furthermore, the reporter's transcript of the July 3, 2002 hearing indicates that the court was lacking in clarity with respect to the exact manner in which offsets should be made. However, by subtracting the total damages award from the amount of the verdict, it is apparent that the offset reflected in the judgment is $252,799.20. We are uncertain how this amount was determined. However, we observe that this amount is close to the total of the $168,799.20 settlement amount the Weis received from 396, plus the $50,000.00 amount 396 paid to cancel the Weis' mortgage debt on the property, and the $33,256.17 amount 396 paid to clear another lien from the property.
Anaheim contends the correct amount of the offset should have been $341,368.37, which equals the $168,799.20 settlement payment, plus the total amount of the liens on the Weis' property when the promissory notes were cancelled. As Anaheim sees it, the Weis received a windfall in the amount of $88,569.17 because the portion of the damages that they collected with respect to their real property exceeded the value of their equity in the property. As we have previously discussed, we agree with Anaheim that the rule of Smith, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d 266 should be applied to prevent the receipt of a windfall. We remand the Wei judgment and direct the trial court to enter a modified judgment reflecting an offset in the amount of $341,368.37.
(d) Cser Judgment
Anaheim claims that the judgment in favor of the Csers contains an erroneous offset. The October 2, 2002 judgment provides a verdict, states that the court made findings pertaining to offsets on July 3, 2002, and then provides a final damages award. The judgment itself does not articulate the amount of the offset, and our review of the record indicates that the court itself did not, on Jul
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|