Costa Mesa Partner Michael W. Connally prevailed on an appeal from a judgment he had obtained at trial. Mr. Connally convinced the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three (Orange County) to affirm the trial court’s award of $85,000 and attorneys’ fees to Lewis Brisbois’ client.
April 08, 2016
Costa Mesa Partner Michael W. Connally prevailed on an appeal from a judgment he had obtained at trial. Mr. Connally convinced the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three (Orange County) to affirm the trial court’s award of $85,000 and attorneys’ fees to Lewis Brisbois’ client. The firm’s client, a title insurance company, had paid a title insurance claim to establish its insured’s title, a lender, and then took an assignment of that insured lender’s rights against the borrower. The plaintiff appealed the judgment, contending the trial court erred by denying her a jury trial, ruling for Lewis Brisbois’ client on its three causes of action, and failing to address her objections to the trial judge’s statement of decision.
The Court of Appeal affirmed. The appellate court unanimously agreed with Mr. Connally’s argument that the trial court properly denied the plaintiff’s untimely request for a jury trial. The Court of Appeal also ruled the plaintiff had not established the trial court’s judgment was erroneous or that the court’s statement of decision was adequate. The court explained that the trial court properly considered the timeliness of the plaintiff’s request for a jury, the delay in rescheduling a jury trial, and prejudice to all the parties, and concluded substantial evidence supported the trial judge’s conclusion that Lewis Brisbois’ client would have been prejudiced by granting the request for a jury trial less than a month before the scheduled trial date. The appellate court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that California’s anti-deficiency statute barred Lewis Brisbois’ client from enforcing the lender’s rights, accepting Mr. Connally’s contention that Arizona law applied and permitted recovery since the loan was not a purchase money mortgage. Finally, the court agreed that the trial court’s statement of decision adequately explained the basis for the rulings in favor of Lewis Brisbois’ client. The court also awarded costs on appeal to Lewis Brisbois’ client.