Friddle

Friddle v. Epstein

Good Law
16 Cal. App. 4th 1649·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 738·21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 85·93 Daily Journal DAR 8824·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5259
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 10, 1993Docket Nos. A052624, A053679California3,710 words

Opinion

Opinion

Poche, J.

This controversy between a real estate broker and his clients presents the following issues: (1) With respect to a contract arranged by their broker, can the clients ratify less than the whole of the contract? (2) Is the Invasion of Privacy Act (Pen. Code, §§ 630-637.6) violated if a surreptitious recording of a confidential communication is not published to a third person? (3) Is a civil litigant who establishes a violation of the Invasion of Privacy Act entitled to recover a mandatory minimum award of $3,000 without regard to any actual damagess suffered? We hold that the answer to the first question is No, while the second and third must be answered Yes.

Background

Plaintiff Michael Friddle, a licensed real estate broker, filed a complaint to recover damages and a $520,000 commission he alleged was owed him by defendants Robert Epstein and Richard Chi for their purchase of a large parcel of real estate. Defendants filed separate cross-complaints to recover a commission of $210,000 they had paid plaintiff in connection with the resale of the property shortly thereafter. Defendants also sought monetary awards pursuant to the privacy act for plaintiff’s surreptitious…

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.