Superior Court of Yuba County

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff buyer sought review of an order from the Superior Court of Yuba County, California, which set aside the jury's verdict in favor of the buyer on the buyer's complaint in breach of contract, granted defendant real property owner a new trial, and ordered struck the award of costs to the buyer on a previous appeal.

Overview: can an employer call your doctor to verify note

The owner's tenant conveyed his business to the buyer. The buyer contended that the owner verbally agreed to transfer the real property also. The buyer sought the amount paid to the tenant for the business for the owner's alleged breach. The owner argued that she never agreed to convey the property to the buyer and that the tenant had no power to sell the property. The trial court determined that the jury was improperly instructed upon the measure of damages and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. On appeal, the court determined that the trial court's order was affirmable if it could have been sustained either because the jury was improperly instructed or because the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the owner was entitled to a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The court found that the jury was improperly instructed on the measure of damages as the instructions trial court failed to specify material matters. The costs were properly struck as the statutory time for filing the cost bill was expired when it was filed.

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Procedural Posture

Defendant appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, in a fee dispute between two attorneys. Plaintiffs, partners in the ownership of a townhouse, appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County (California) rejecting their claims for alleged breach of contract and constructive fraud against defendants, partners and co-owners.

Outcome

Judgment affirmed; fee agreement between plaintiff and defendant was not subject to the disciplinary rule prohibiting fee splitting because plaintiff was essentially functioning on the same basis as an employee of the law office.

I'm Anne Tyner. I provide guest post service