Hasler

Hasler v. Howard

Good Law
120 Cal. App. 4th 1023·16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 217·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1174·2004 Daily Journal DAR 8969·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6629
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 22, 2004B168790California1,323 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

Plaintiff lists his house for sale by defendant broker. The listing agreement provides for attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in an action regarding broker’s compensation. Plaintiff sues his real estate broker for selling his house below its value, but does not request return of the broker’s commission.

At a settlement conference, he offers to compromise his claim for the amount of the broker’s commission. The case does not settle and plaintiff dismisses his complaint. In the broker’s motion for attorney’s fees, she offers plaintiff’s settlement statement, not to establish that his complaint lacks merit, but to show the broker’s commission was an element of his damages claim.

Here we conclude the trial court properly excluded the settlement statement. We affirm.

FACTS

Geoff Hasler sued Cynthia D. Howard, a real estate broker, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of duty to disclose. Hasler alleged in his complaint that he engaged Howard and other brokers to sell his home in the Montecito area of Santa Barbara. The brokers advised him that the maximum selling price he could expect was $3,795,000. A buyer offered $3,795,000. The brokers encouraged…

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.