Newstart Real Estate Inv. LLC v. Huang, No. B292417 (D2d8 Jul. 3, 2019)
P wins a money judgment that includes punitive damages. The Court, however, issues a remittitur on punitives under Code of Civil Procedure § 662.5. P rejected it, resulting in a granted motion for a new trial. P appeals under § 904.1(a)(4). And while that’s proceeding, P starts to make efforts to collect on the compensatory part of the judgment.
The trial court shuts that down, reasoning that a grant of a new trial has the effect of vacating the whole judgment until retrial occurs and a single final judgment can be entered. The Court of Appeal agrees. You can only collect on a final judgment. When a new trial motion is granted, that vacates the judgment as a matter of law. That a retrial might ultimately be addressed only to the punitives and not to liability or compensatory damages is not relevant to the collectability issue.
Affirmed.
Showing posts with label retrial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label retrial. Show all posts
Thursday, July 11, 2019
Friday, June 1, 2018
Post Mistrial Bench Submission Waives Jury Errors
Tierney v. Javaid, No. A147221 (D1d3 May 31, 2018)
A jury trial in a real estate dispute resulted in a hung jury, with the jury seemingly stuck on the question of whether Plaintiff had fully performed up to the time of Defendant’s breach. Instead of starting a new trial, Plaintiff asked the trial court to render a bench decision based on the trial record on his demand for specific performance. In doing do, he essentially submitted the factual issues that underlay his breach of contract claim to the court for decision. The court obliged, and issued a statement of decision denying specific performance because Plaintiff, had not, in fact, fully performed.
On appeal, Plaintiff raises several issues with the way the trial court handled the hung jury. But by asking the court to render a decision, Plaintiff waived those challenges. If he wanted the jury to decide the issues, he should have taken a mistrial and re-tried the case.
Also, in deciding the specific performance issues, the court wasn’t bound by partial findings the jury made in an incomplete special verdict before they hung. While a completed special verdict binds the court on later factual questions that have already been decided by the jury, an incomplete special verdict is not really a verdict at all, so it doesn’t bind anyone.
Affirmed on this issue, but reversed on issues addressed in an unpublished part of the opinion.
A jury trial in a real estate dispute resulted in a hung jury, with the jury seemingly stuck on the question of whether Plaintiff had fully performed up to the time of Defendant’s breach. Instead of starting a new trial, Plaintiff asked the trial court to render a bench decision based on the trial record on his demand for specific performance. In doing do, he essentially submitted the factual issues that underlay his breach of contract claim to the court for decision. The court obliged, and issued a statement of decision denying specific performance because Plaintiff, had not, in fact, fully performed.
On appeal, Plaintiff raises several issues with the way the trial court handled the hung jury. But by asking the court to render a decision, Plaintiff waived those challenges. If he wanted the jury to decide the issues, he should have taken a mistrial and re-tried the case.
Also, in deciding the specific performance issues, the court wasn’t bound by partial findings the jury made in an incomplete special verdict before they hung. While a completed special verdict binds the court on later factual questions that have already been decided by the jury, an incomplete special verdict is not really a verdict at all, so it doesn’t bind anyone.
Affirmed on this issue, but reversed on issues addressed in an unpublished part of the opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)