Barry

Barry v. Raskov

Good Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 828·232 Cal. App. 3d 447·283 Cal. Rptr. 463·91 Daily Journal DAR 8736·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5679
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 18, 1991B036174California8,452 words

Opinion

Concurring Opinion

Woods, J.

—I concur in the judgment, but write separately to express dissatisfaction with the reasoning contained in the lead opinion under subparagraph I of the Discussion pertaining to third party liability of the broker for the tortious acts of an independent property appraiser.

I am of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence (slight) before the trier of fact to entitle appellant to the requested jury instruction on whether the appraiser was an agent of the broker or an independent contractor. The court erred in failing to give the requested instruction. I am convinced, however, from the facts demonstrated in this record that no different result would have been obtained had the requested jury instruction been given and accordingly find no reason to reverse or remand for new trial. (Jacobs v. Bozzani Motors, Ltd. (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 681, 686-687 [ 241 P.2d 642 ]; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Appeal § 350.) The evidénce of lack of independence on the part of the appraiser is overwhelming in this instance.

The seat of my dissatisfaction with the lead opinion on this issue is the expansiveness of the reasoning, which in my opinion, far exceeds the narrow *459 question of…

Opinion

Defendants appeal from a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff in his action for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff cross-appeals from the nonsuit on his claim for punitive damages under his fraud cause of action. We affirm the judgment except as to prejudgment interest.

Plaintiff, Raymond Barry, is a retired person who, over the course of some 50 years, managed to accumulate $250,000 in a savings account solely from his wages. Mr. Barry had no previous experience with investments, other than his savings account. He had never invested in stocks or bonds or real estate. He did not own a home.

Jefferson Home Loan (Jefferson) is a mortgage loan broker. Jefferson deals exclusively with borrowers who cannot obtain loans from banks or savings and loan institutions due to poor credit ratings, bankruptcies and similar causes. For that reason Jefferson charges high interest rates and looks to the borrower's equity in real estate for protection against default.

The year after he retired, Mr. Barry met a representative of Jefferson at the home of a friend. This representative, Mayers, talked to Mr. Barry about investing in home…

Lead Opinion

Johnson, J.

—Defendants appeal from a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff in his action for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff cross-appeals from the nonsuit on his claim for punitive damages under his fraud cause of action. We affirm the judgment except as to prejudgment interest.

Facts and Proceedings Below

Plaintiff, Raymond Barry, is a retired person who, over the course of some 50 years, managed to accumulate $250,000 in a savings account solely from his wages. Mr. Barry had no previous experience with investments, other than his savings account. He had never invested in stocks or bonds or real estate. He did not own a home.

Jefferson Home Loan (Jefferson) is a mortgage loan broker. Jefferson deals exclusively with borrowers who cannot obtain loans from banks or savings and loan institutions due to poor credit ratings, bankruptcies and similar causes. For that reason Jefferson charges high interest rates and looks to the borrower’s equity in real estate for protection against default.

The year after he retired, Mr. Barry met a representative of Jefferson at the home of a friend. This representative, Mayers, talked to Mr. Barry about…

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.