Plaintiff claimants appealed a post-judgment

[Anne E. Tyner]

Plaintiff claimants appealed a post-judgment order from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which denied their motion to tax expert witness costs sought by defendant manufacturer pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 998, after a defense verdict on an asbestos exposure claim.

The claimants, a husband and wife, asserted claims for personal injury and loss of consortium respectively. Prior to trial, the manufacturer made a § 998 offer to compromise jointly to both spouses. In the trial court, the claimants raised the issue of the validity of a joint offer only within parentheses in a single sentence of their motion to tax costs, unsupported by any citation to authority.  Exhaustee means an individual who, with respect to any week of unemployment in the individual's eligibility period has received, prior to such week, all of the regular benefits. The court stated that it could treat the issue as waived for failure to raise it properly and that, in any event, the claimants' argument lacked merit. The claimants' causes of action arose during the marriage and constituted community property under Fam. Code, § 780. Unlike an offer expressly conditioned on acceptance by all plaintiffs, an offer did not have to be accepted by both spouses to be effective because Fam. Code, § 1100, subd. (a), placed management and control of the community personal property in either spouse, regardless of whether the injuries claimed by each spouse were indivisible or separate. Either spouse could accept an offer on behalf of the community. Section 1100, subd. (b), did not require the manufacturer to show that the offer provided fair and reasonable value.

The court affirmed the order.