Court Confirms Prejudgment Interest

Pro Value Properties, Inc. v. Quality Loan Service Corp. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 579

The Second District Court of Appeal confirmed that, pursuant to California Constitution , Article XV, Section 1, prejudgment interest on non-contract claims is seven percent (7%) per annum. If the claim is based upon a contract and the interest rate is specified in the contract, then the interest rate is as specified, unless it violates the usury laws. If the claim is based upon a contract and the interst rate is not specified, or the interest rate is specified but it violates the usury laws, then the interest rate defaults to the ten percent (10%) per annum interest rate specified in Civil Code section 3289.

This case arises from a situation in which Defendant Quality Loan Service (QLS) instituted a non-judicial foreclosure proceeding at the request of the beneficiary of a deed of trust, FV-1. QLS, in accordance with its filed Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee Sale, proceeded to sell the property at a trustee's sale and issued a Trustee's Deed of Sale to the purchaser at the trustee sale, Pro Value Properties, Inc. (PRO). Unfortunately, prior to the trustee sale, QLS was not the trustee under FV-1's deed of trust, nor was a Substitution of Trustee executed to substitute QLS as the trustee under the deed of trust. Upon discovering the error and determining that the Trustee's Deed of Sale was void, QLS tendered the entire purchase price, plus seven percent interest to PRO, who refused the tender and claimed that it was the rightful owner of the property. The trial court found that QLS and PRO had a contract, albeit a void contract, and determined that QLS' tender was insufficient because it included seven percent instead of ten percent interest.

The appellate court stated that QLS failed to comply with its statutory duties (ministerial acts as set forth by Civil Code section 2924 et seq.) and this statutory violation resulted in a void sale. Further, as there was no contract between QLS and PRO, whether void or otherwise, the ten percent provision of Civil Code section 3289 did not apply. Therefore, the seven percent interest tendered by QLS was the appropriate interest rate and QLS' obligations to PRO were fulfilled when it tendered the entire purchase price, plus seven percent interest.

Penney and Associates Wins Contractor Suit

February 23, 2009 Trials Digest just came out with a verdict in Placer County where we prevailed on a contractor breach of contract suit. In sum, Penney and Associates client Summit Builders Inc. performed work for Habitat Construction Inc.. Habitat Construction failed to fully compensate Summit Builders. See page 12 of the Trials Digest for further details.

Disclaimer

DISCLAIMER: here is the legal “mumbojumbo” that we need to say.


Any and all written material contained herein from Penney and Associates or its attorneys is for informational purposes and is not intended to be construed as legal advise. Any mention of cases or the results of such cases is not intended to advise concerning the value of similar cases. Nothing herein is intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Always consult with an attorney.

Contractor Sues Insurance Company For Water Damage

CONTRACTOR SUES FOR COVERAGE FOR WATER DAMAGE

Essex Insurance Company v. City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airports.

This interesting case concerns an issue of insurance bad faith and / or failure of an insurance company to cover a contractor for a job done near the Los Angeles World Airport. Professional Building Contractors Inc. was hired to soundproof buildings located near the Los Angeles Airport. Damage occurred to one of the project homes on October 15, 2004, when a severe storm blew an improperly secured tarp off of the roof which ultimately resulted in major water damage. Professional Building Contractors Inc., paid $125,000.00 to repair the damage to the home. When the contractor requested their insurance company to pay for the damages, they refused. The insurance company argued that the roof was not a “reported operation.” The contractor argued that the policy was intended to cover the entire “sound-proofing project.” The contractor cross-claimed against the insurance company alleging breach of fiduciary duty, unfair business practices, negligent misrepresentation, negligence and breach of contract.
Cross-claimant contractor was awarded $682,264 breach of contract and $2,500,000.00 in punitive damages against the insurance company. The jury voted 10/2 to grant contractor punitive damages against Essex Insurance Company.
If an insurance company refuses to cover you under your insurance policy call Penney and Associates for a consultation concerning your rights.