Procedural Posture

[Saim Khan]

Plaintiff investors challenged the decision of the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California), which granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of defendant corporation and granted their motion for new trial, because there was insufficient evidence to prove that they were guilty of fraud and negligence in their appraisal of real estate investment property. For the corporation business litigation hire conflict attorney Los Angeles.

Overview

Plaintiff investors hired defendant corporation to do an appraisal of property to be used as collateral on a loan. The loan went into default and plaintiffs foreclosed on the property. Thereafter, plaintiffs found that defendant's appraisal report was inaccurate. Plaintiffs brought an action against defendant for fraud, conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and breach of contract. The jury returned a partial verdict in favor of plaintiffs and defendant filed motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. The trial court granted defendant's motions and plaintiffs sought review. On review, the court reversed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict and affirmed the motion for new trial. The court held that the trial court erred in granting the judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on excessive damages, because plaintiffs were entitled to receive consequential damages that resulted from defendant's inaccurate appraisal. However, the court correctly granted the motion for new trial because evidence of insurance proceeds received by plaintiff that related to the underlying property was improperly excluded at trial.

Outcome

The court reversed the order granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of defendant corporation and affirmed the motion for new trial granted to defendant. The court held that the judgment notwithstanding the verdict was invalid because the trial court considered an improper measure of damages. However, the motion for new trial was correctly granted because relevant evidence had been improperly excluded at trial.