Kurtin

Kurtin v. Elieff

Good Law
155 Cal. Rptr. 3d 573·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 289·215 Cal. App. 4th 455·2013 WL 1629057
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 16, 2013G043999ACalifornia13,453 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rylaarsdam, J.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment holding defendant Bruce Elieff liable for misstating his authority to bind a group of real estate businesses known as the “Joint Entities” in the course of agreeing to buy out his former partner, plaintiff Todd Kurtin. We affirm the trial court’s posttrial order denying Elieff’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. And we affirm the trial court’s grant of a new trial as to the issue of the precise amount of damages which Kurtin may recover.

However, as to one of Kurtin’s causes of action—for liability under Civil Code section 2343 for lack-of-good-faith breach of an agent’s warranty of authority—the new trial order must extend to liability as well. (All further statutory references to sections 2343, 2342, or 3318 will be to the Civil Code.) The jury returned inconsistent verdicts. Liability under section 2343 requires either (1) the lack of a good faith belief on an agent’s part that “he has authority” to bind “his principal,” or (2) an act by the agent that is “wrongful” in its nature. Case law has equated “wrongful” with tortious. Here, the jury found that Elieff did have a good faith belief in his authority to bind what…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.