Skip to main content
Stephen Gregory Hammers
Avvo
Pro

Stephen Hammers’s Legal Cases

8 total

  • Charles Dunn Company v. Kymm Trust

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Outcome:
    Verdict of $461,290.50 in Favor of Charles Dunn Company, Mr. Hammers' Client.
    Description:
    AAA Arbitration. Real Estate Dispute. Action on a listing contract involving sale of a $10,500,000.00 building in Westminster, CA on Goldenwest Circle. The Kymm Trust retained Charles Dunn Company ("Dunn"), Mr. Hammers' client, to list and sell the Property. Dunn's agent entered an exclusive listing agreement with the Kymms, who were sophisticated real estate owners and developers. The listing was for four months and required purchase by either of two named buyers. The Dunn agent brought one of those two buyers to the Kymms for the purchase, with an offer of $10,400,000.00. The Kymms then stated that they wanted the agent to find a 1031 tax exchange property (an "upleg"), although that requirement was not set forth in the Listing Agreement with Dunn. The Dunn agent therefore entered a separate Listing Agreement with the Kymm Trust, as a "buyer's agent," and began searching for an upleg property. Although several properties were identified to the Kymms, they never settled on any. Neither of the listing agreements resulted in a sale. The Dunn agent requested that the Kymms pay the commission on the first listing, which was $416,000.00. The Kymms declined, claiming that the Dunn agent had misrepresented the potential purchase price of the upleg property, and had taken other action in breach of his fiduciary duty. Dunn then filed the Demand for Arbitration with AAA. The Arbitration Panel awarded Dunn the entire commission, as well as all attorneys' fees and costs. Total award issued was $461,290.50.
  • Chicago Title Company v. Alpine-Rivera, LLC, H. Wayne Klekamp, Inc., Destiny-Phoenix, et.al.

    Practice Area:
    Commercial
    Date:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Outcome:
    Wayne Klekamp, Inc., Mr. Hammers' client, prevailed.
    Description:
    Interpleader action involving an $11 Million contract for the sale of property located in Texas, California and Arizona. Buyer H. Wayne Klekamp, Inc., an Ohio corporation, represented by Mr. Hammers, claimed breach of warranty during escrow, alleging high nitrate levels in the water at the property in Arizona. Buyer alleged that it discovered the claim after expiration of its due diligence period under the purchase contract. Seller, represented by the New York and Los Angeles offices of Steptoe & Johnson, claimed that buyer had notice of the claim before it signed the contract. It alleged further that the purported breach was not material and/or buyer failed to cooperate with seller's right to bond off the issue under the purchase agreement. Seller claimed that a fix of the problem was available for less than $90K, a relatively small sum in light of the total purchase price of the properties. Chicago Title deposited buyer's earnest monies into court (interpleaded the funds) and buyer and seller went to trial over entitlement to the funds. Testimony was taken from a number of witnesses, including buyer, seller, seller's counsel and officials of the County of Maricopa (AZ) and City of Goodyear. The trial court found in favor of buyer H. Wayne Klekamp, Inc., directing that all interpleaded funds be returned to buyer. Seller appealed, Fourth Circuit Case No. G039158. Buyer Klekamp, represented by Mr. Hammers, also prevailed on appeal.
  • Pace v. Summerfield

    Practice Area:
    Commercial
    Date:
    May 15, 2006
    Outcome:
    Phillip Pace Awarded verdict in his favor.
    Description:
    Commercial dispute on promissory note and defense of fraud. Pace sought and was awarded declaratory relief on sums paid on promissory note. Pace prevailed upon a cross-complaint seeking $1.2 Million.
  • Ventura Tarzana, LLC v. Computer Palace, Inc., Shamolian

    Practice Area:
    Commercial
    Date:
    Apr 15, 2005
    Outcome:
    Verdict in favor of Ventura Tarzana, LLC
    Description:
    Action on a lease dispute for sums owing to plaintiff. Plaintiff prevailed, and also defeated cross-claim alleging fraudulent CAM charges.
  • E&R Liquor Partnership Dispute (Sabbagh v. Isak and Hachicho) KC045449

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Apr 18, 2006
    Outcome:
    ER Liquor and its owner prevailed.
    Description:
    Commercial dispute. Plaintiff prevailed on complaint and defeated cross-complaint. Received award of attorneys' fees.
  • Lee v. Isak KC043708

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Aug 05, 2004
    Outcome:
    Defendant Chukrala Isak prevailed.
    Description:
    Isak was sued by Lee on a real estate deal. Isak prevailed on Lee's complaint, and also obtained favorable relief on his own cross-complaint. Isak awarded attorneys fees by the judge.
  • Oso Trabuco LLC v. Bixby Development Company, LLC

    Practice Area:
    Real Estate
    Date:
    Feb 21, 2010
    Outcome:
    Arbitrator awarded Mr. Hammers' client $1.7 Million in damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs exceeding $500,000. All sums sought by Developer on its Cross-claims ($7.5 Million) were denied.
    Description:
    Action on damages for $1.7 Million on a claim for breach of contract, and defense of a cross-claim seeking $12 Million in unjust enrichment damages and breach of fiduciary duty. Mr. Hammers represented the landowner, which had entered a "Master Agreement" and various related agreements with the Developer. Pursuant to the terms of the Master Agreement, developer was required to entitle and sell various portions of the owner's property, consisting of hundreds of acres of undeveloped land near the San Francisco Bay. The Master Agreement provided for a division of sales proceeds in stages, with proceeds to be distributed to either the owner or the developer over a lengthy period of time. Developer had the right of assignment under these agreements, and did assign, various rights and obligations to third parties. The Master Agreement was amended three times in writing. Developer alleged it was also amended orally, and that these amendments changed the relationship between the parties. Over time, argued the developer, the parties became fiduciaries of one another, owing one another heightened obligations and duties. Owner argued that no such relationship arose between the parties, and that Developer should pay all sales proceeds owing under the Master Agreement.
  • Trust v. Briggs, Briggs Ventures

    Practice Area:
    Business
    Date:
    Sep 20, 2011
    Outcome:
    Court awarded Mr. Hammers' client $410,000.00 in compensatory damages, $1 Million in punitive damages and $92,000.00 in prejudgment interest.
    Description:
    Mr. Hammers represented a Trust with regard to a series of coin transactions that resulted in a loss of $410,000.00. The manner in which the transactions were handled appeared fraudulent. Representatives of Briggs Ventures sold several rare coins to the Trust over a period of six months. Briggs also assisted the Trust in purchasing over a half million in gold bullion. After earning the trust and confidence of the trustee, the Briggs representatives offered to make a trade with the trustee. Briggs would provide a rare, numismatic, platinum coin, dated 1850, in exchange all the gold bullion and rare coins purchased by the Trust. Briggs claimed that the numismatic coin was worth more than $1 Million on the open market. To further encourage the Trust to complete the transaction, Briggs also offered to market the numismatic coin at a number of trade shows, and through various internet sites. Briggs failed to follow through on the promises to market the coin, and the Trust ended up selling the coin at public auction for only $120,000.00. At trial, the Verdict issued on 9/20/11.