Bevis v. Terrace View Partners, LP, 244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 797 (2019)

Citation: Bevis v. Terrace View Partners, LP, 244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 797 (2019)
Parent Document: Bevis v. Terrace View Partners, LP, 244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 797 (2019)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2019-02-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6240337/bevis-v-terrace-view-partners-lp/ ↗

Full Text

1,344 chars

In the present case, neither the instructions nor verdict form directed the jury to segregate economic damages by category-i.e., to specify the type of damages it was awarding (e.g., diminution of value and overpayment of rent)-and the verdict form did not require the jury to segregate any compensatory damages by cause of action or legal theory. This rendered the verdict ambiguous because we cannot determine what portion of the jury's compensatory damage award is based on the condition of the park as a result of defendants' failure to follow park rules and what portion is based on high rent. However, as we discussed, it is clear from the record that any damages based on defendants' failure to follow park rules are substantially dwarfed by improper compensatory damages based on high rent. Because we are unable to resolve the ambiguity in the verdict form and cannot conclude the entire award of compensatory damages reasonably could have been based on a viable legal theory other than "overpayment" of rent, reversal is appropriate. (See Demkowski v. Lee (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1263, 284 Cal.Rptr. 919 [reversal required where verdict form was ambiguous in failing to require segregation of damages to prevent a double recovery and reviewing court was unable to resolve the ambiguity and conclude there was no double recovery].)

Other Sections in This Document (125)

Full Text