Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)

Citation: Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
Parent Document: Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2025-03-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10356658/kaushansky-v-stonecroft-attorneys-apc/ ↗

Full Text

1,803 chars

16
landlord if Stonecroft had reasonably managed the landlord-
tenant litigation. We agree. There is no dispute Stonecroft failed
to raise the issue of collectibility in its objections to the statement
of decision. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 634, we may
infer that the trial court decided in favor of Kaushansky as to
collectibility. (See Arceneaux, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 1133.)
       The issue remaining before us is whether any substantial
evidence in the record would support this implied finding. Our
review indicates there is no such evidence. Kaushansky argues
there is substantial evidence of her landlord’s ability to pay based
on her testimony at trial that she alerted Stonecroft by email on
March 26, 2014 that she had “‘found out from the manager that
the building closed today, and the new owner paid over 11 million
in cash.’” The email also asked, “Does the fact that there may not
be a loan on the building change anything? Does it help or hurt,
or does it matter?” Kaushansky also argues that the landlord
secured counsel in the landlord-tenant action, “aggressively”
litigated the case, and paid Kaushansky a $2,500 settlement as
evidence that the landlord could have paid “some portion” of her
damages.
       As an initial matter, the March 26, 2014 email was not
admitted into evidence and only served to refresh Kaushansky’s
recollection about when she learned the building had been sold.
Thus, the email itself held no evidentiary value. Nor was
Kaushansky’s reading of the email into the record sufficient to
establish anything besides the fact she learned about the sale of
the building on March 26, 2014. (See Estate of Packer (1913)
164 Cal. 525, 530 [the party offering a writing to refresh a
witness’s recollection “has not the right to treat it as evidence”];

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text