Bevis v. Terrace View Partners, LP (2019)

Citation: Bevis v. Terrace View Partners, LP (2019)
Parent Document: Bevis v. Terrace View Partners, LP (2019)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2019-03-21
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4602468/bevis-v-terrace-view-partners-lp/ ↗

Full Text

1,646 chars

8       Although the verdict forms combined breach of contract and breach of the
covenant of quiet enjoyment under the single heading: "BREACH OF
CONTRACT/BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT," the forms
also treated the two theories as being separate. The forms first asked the jury whether
defendants breached their contract with the plaintiff or plaintiffs identified on the form.
If the jury answered "yes," they were directed to answer the question whether defendants
breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment with the plaintiff or plaintiffs. If they
answered "no" to the first question (finding no breach of contract), they were directed to
go to the first question under the next cause of action (negligence/negligence per se) and
not decide whether defendants breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Only if the
jury found the defendants breached both their contract with the plaintiffs and the
covenant of quiet enjoyment was the jury directed to answer the question, "Was
DEFENDANTS' breach of contract or breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment a
substantial factor in causing harm to [the plaintiff]?" If the jury answered "yes" to
whether defendants breached their contract with plaintiffs but answered "no" to whether
defendants beached the covenant of quiet enjoyment with plaintiffs, it was directed to go
to the next theory or cause of action. As to each of the 16 plaintiffs, the jury found
defendants liable for both breach of contract and breach of the covenant of quiet
enjoyment.
                                             22
       The jury returned separate verdicts awarding punitive damages. As with economic

Other Sections in This Document (1194)

Full Text