Successfully obtained Judgment for our Client, De La Rosa
This case involved a three (3) day Trial before Judge Michael Solner (Central Division L.A. County Superior Court) regarding title and ownership of a home in Los Angeles, California. The Owners/Parties were never married, yet through Escrow, took title as "Joint Tenants". Nearly 10 years after one Party vacated the home and stopped paying for the mortgage, taxes, insurance and maintenance, she sued the Occupant Party for Partition of the real estate.
Expert Witnesses were sworn and testified as to the current Fair Market Value of the property. Experts also testified as to the current Fair Market Rental Value of the property. The Parties were sworn and testified, and extensive cross-examination revealed that the Plaintiff (non-occupant) was proven to have little or no credibility.
Legal Briefs were submitted and oral argument was presented to the Court. The Ruling made by Judge Solner followed California case law. The Court found that the presumptions relating to real property held in Joint Tenancy, were rebutted by the evidence introduced at Trial. Thus, the non-occupant Party who failed to pay the mortgage, taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc., was not entitled to equally share in the net equity of the home.
As a consequence, the Occupant Party was permitted to buy-out the non-occupant Party's ownership interest, based upon evidence (on the record) of exactly how much the non-occupant Party actually contributed to the purchase of the home.
In the final analysis, our Client, the Occupant Party was able to save about $180,000 - $200,000 by NOT having to equally divide the net equity of the home.
Richter vs. Clifford, and Cross-Complaints
Sep 01, 2010
Successful outcome for our Client, Clifford - Trial Judge awarded my client his damages, interest, attorneys fees and costs of suit.
I recently conducted a Trial in Ventura County Superior Court to enforce a Promissory Note Secured by a Deed of Trust. The Note Holder died and her Nephew (Trustee of Estate) found the Note in his Aunt's Safe Deposit Box. After 18 years passsed from the date of the Note, I successfully introduced evidence and testimony that convinced the Judge to allow enforcement of an 18 year old debt. The Court awarded my client the principal amount of the debt, interest and attorney's fees and costs of suit.
Gordon vs. Villa Amodei, Ivan Amodei, Jennifer Amodei, et. al.
Contracts & Agreements
Judgment for Plaintiffs - against Villa Amodei and its owners, Ivan Amodei and Jennifer Amodei.
Plaintiffs commenced suit to specifically enforce a written contract to hold a Wedding and Wedding Reception in Somis, California. In 2008 a soon-to-be husband and wife contracted with Villa Amodei and its owners to conduct their Wedding and Wedding Reception on their 30 acre Estate and Orchard located in Somis, California. A mere 5 weeks prior to the Wedding, it was discovered (via newspaper articles) that Villa Amodei did NOT have the proper licensing and "conditional use permit" which allowed Weddings to be conducted on their premises. Plaintiff's were forced to immediately find a new Wedding site to accommodate 180 persons, along with contracting for new food caterers, invitations, wedding coordinator, flowers, arrangements for beverages, and the additional details involved with hosting a large Wedding and Reception. Undertaking these tasks within the last 5 weeks before the scheduled Wedding date consumed an enormous amount of time and caused further damages to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued for the difference in the contract price between the original Wedding Venue at Villa Amodei and the "actual" cost of the Wedding, which was held at Sherwood Country Club. The testimony of numerous witnesses was heard, and dozens of documents were marked and introduced into evidence. It was held that Villa Amodei and its owners "breached the contract" and were held to pay the resulting damages to Plaintiffs, who were forced to scramble for a new Wedding Venue within 5 weeks of the target Wedding date.
Marriage of "G"
Sep 03, 2012
Judge pronounced "judicial findings" favorable to our client.
In a three year hotly contested Divorce matter, the Trial Court (after a 6 day Trial) made "judicial findings" that were 100% favorable to our client. Multiple parcels of commercial and residential real property were successfully maintained by our client, and his ongoing business was awarded to him, and him alone. Very minimal Spousal and Child Support obligations were awarded, as the Court made "findings" that his spouse was, in fact, able to work and capable of supporting herself. (Northwest Judicial District - 2012)