Partner withdraws from real estate deal and later commences litigation that leads to malicious prosecution action.
[Note: This Malicious Prosecution verdict report was earlier published incorrectly under the title of Real Estate actions. Also, in the "Notes" section of the report, comments from both plaintiff and defense attorneys regarding Motions in Limine has been deleted.]
Total compensatory damages against all defendants jointly and severally: $447,300
Punitive damages (from first trial) against Charon Solutions, Inc.: $250,000.00
Punitive damages (from first trial) against Perry Leonard Segal: $250,000.00
$7,300 (attorney fees defending underlying maliciously prosecuted action).
Emotional distress: $400,000
Impairment to reputation: $40,000
$250,000 against defendant Charon Solutions, Inc.
$250,000 against defendant Perry Leonard Segal
Law Offices of Yvonne M. Renfrew by Yvonne M. Renfrew, Los Angeles.
Henry J. Josefsberg, Los Alamitos.
Parties (defendant Segal through his wholly-owned corporation, defendant Charon Solutions, Inc., and plaintiff Jensen through her wholly-owned corporation) formed an LLC (non-party P&P), which it was orally agreed would seek subdivision of a large hillside lot owned by plaintiff, and IF subdivision could be effected, then P&P would build a spec home on the split-off lot to be sold for profit.
Before subdivision was effected, Charon withdrew from P&P. Defendants first attempted to intervene in litigation between plaintiff and the person who had sold plaintiff subject property while concealing severe earthquake damage, then (after withdrawing from P&P) sued plaintiff Jensen for fraud and other causes of action for her supposed "failure" to perform obligations with respect to the lot-split project.
That defendants claimed interest in plaintiff's property without legal or factual basis, and through both the attempted intervention and their later lawsuit sought to obtain ownership of (or ownership interest in) plaintiff Jensen's real property.
Upon Charon's withdrawal from P&P, plaintiff – pursuant to the terms of the P&P Operating Agreement – offered reimbursement of all money expended by Segal or Charon in connection with the project, but defendants rejected that offer.
This case was first tried by jury to a gross verdict of $1,500,000 (including punitive damages). Reversed and remanded for retrial as to compensatory damages only.
Defendants contended that through Segal's efforts in seeking approval of the subdivision of the lot, he and/or his corporation had acquired an "unperfected ownership interest" in the property.
Legal expense of defending underlying action.