Lambert

Lambert v. Francis CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 21, 2016H041665California3,346 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mihara, J.

I. Background1

A. Dalton I Plaintiffs Vera Dalton and William Corbin (collectively, the buyers) purchased a house from Lambert.2 Francis and Robinson represented the buyers as well as Lambert in the transaction. The buyers sued Lambert and Francis and Robinson based on a misrepresentation that the property, which used a dilapidated septic system, was connected to the public sewer. The buyers prevailed in a 2005 jury trial and obtained a damages award against all defendants. In a post-judgment order dated December 16, 2005, the trial court awarded the buyers $50,000 in attorney’s fees and costs against all defendants. The court ruled that Lambert was entitled to indemnification from Francis and Robinson for damages and attorney’s fees and costs awarded to the buyers against her. All parties appealed from the December 16, 2005 order. This court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order. The court reversed the order, directed the trial court to reinstate an earlier post-judgment order, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court also ruled that the parties should bear their own costs on the Dalton I appeal.

1 The facts are taken in large part…

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.