Procedural Posture

Defendant financiers sought review from Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which granted judgment in favor of plaintiff debtors and held that the note and deed of trust executed by plaintiffs were null and void and created no lien upon plaintiffs' property. The trial court further awarded damages to plaintiffs for the false, fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious acts of defendants.

California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. are lawyers restaurant Los Angeles

Overview

Plaintiff debtors initiated action against defendant financiers for the false, fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious acts of defendants regarding note and deed of trust executed by plaintiffs. The trial court held that such note and deed were null and void and created no lien upon plaintiffs' property. The trial court also awarded compensatory and punitive damages to plaintiffs for defendants' malicious acts. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the finding that defendant individual secured plaintiffs' signatures through fraudulent misrepresentations but that the evidence was insufficient to find that remaining defendants were liable. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendants conspired to attempt to exact usurious interest from plaintiffs, pursuant to Cal. Const. art. XX, § 22. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the punitive damages award, which was the result of passion or prejudice on behalf of the trier of fact. The court reversed the judgment of the trial court with directions to reassess the compensatory and exemplary damages due from defendant individual and to revise the findings.

Outcome

The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, which held that malicious acts of defendant financiers caused note and deed executed by plaintiff debtors to be null and void. The court held that defendant individual did secure plaintiffs' signatures through fraudulent misrepresentations and attempted to exact usurious interest but that remaining defendants were not liable. The court held that an award of punitive damages was not appropriate.