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

1,794 chars

17
accord, People v. Vasquez (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 1019, 1036;
Frio v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1480, 1492.)
       Even if Kaushansky’s reading of the email into the record
demonstrated the landlord received $11 million for the building,
this evidence is not enough for the trial court to conclude with a
reasonable degree of certainty that the landlord was solvent and
had sufficient funds to pay the damages. In particular,
Kaushansky does not direct us to any evidence of a mortgage or
lack of one to demonstrate the net proceeds of the sale were
sufficient to satisfy the hypothetical judgment. Kaushansky’s
speculation in her email that “there may not be a loan on the
building” is not evidence the landlord netted $11 million in the
sale. (See Garretson, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 572 [evidence
the underlying defendant ran a successful dental practice with
25 employees, owned the office building in which the practice was
housed, and was involved in seven or eight other development
projects was insufficient to prove solvency because it did not show
that he “had any positive net income, net worth, or other means
of satisfying a judgment”]; cf. DiPalma, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1510 [substantial evidence of solvency from testimony of net
proceeds from sale of real estate, and real estate owned with
accompanying mortgages].)
       Nor is the fact that the landlord had the means (either
through insurance or otherwise) to retain counsel, litigate the
landlord-tenant matter, and pay a $2,500 settlement sufficient to
prove collectibility of the $91,734.29 award. (See, e.g., Hecht,
supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at p. 593 [“It is not enough for the
[underlying defendant] in this case to suggest that the record
already adequately shows it had some available liability

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text