 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stevens v. 396 Investment Co.5/17/2005
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 $311,230.82. We observe that this amount is equal to the total of the $117,795.15 settlement amount the Csers received from 396, plus the $193,435.67 amount 396 paid to cancel the Csers' mortgage debt on the property.
Anaheim contends the correct amount of the offset should have been $374,120.15, which equals the $117,795.15 settlement payment, plus the $256,325 amount owing on the Csers' mortgage when the debt was cancelled. As Anaheim sees it, the Csers received a windfall in the amount of $62,889.33 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 Cser judgment and direct the trial court to enter a modified judgment reflecting an offset in the amount of $374,120.15.
(e) Williams Judgment
Anaheim claims that the judgment in favor of the Williamses 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 Williamses. 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 $381,711.85. We observe that this amount is equal to the total of the $146,709.85 settlement amount the Williamses received from 396, plus the $235,000 amount 396 paid to cancel the Williamses' mortgage debt on the property and a $2 adjustment apparently on account of the fact that the verdict amount as reflected in the judgment is $2 off the amount contained in the special verdict.
Anaheim contends the correct amount of the offset should have been $512,497.03, which equals the $146,709.85 settlement payment, plus the $305,787.18 amount owing on the Williamses' mortgage when the debt was cancelled and a $60,000 amount with respect to attorney fees. As Anaheim sees it, the Williamses received a windfall in the amount of $130,787.18 because the portion of the damages that they collected with respect to their real property exceeded the value of their equity in the property and because of the lack of an offset with respect to the attorney fee allocation. 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. The amount of the offset should have been at least $452,497.03.
The question of the requested $60,000 offset for attorney fees is another matter. In their responsive brief on issues submitted to the court, dated May 16, 2002, the Williamses stated: "The $60,000.00 is a one-tenth share of the $600,000.00 allocated to payment of attorneys fees and costs. This amount, however, should not be allocated as an offset to the Williams ' damages award. Rather, it should be allocated as an offset to any amount of attorneys' fees awarded to t
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
|