Defendant owner sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Cowlitz County (California), which awarded plaintiff former owner damages for the owner’s breach of an agreement to allow the former owner to reside on the property and granted the former owner an equitable lien on the property as security. The owner contended that the former owner could not recover damages for physical impairment in a breach of contract action.
Overview
The claimant had a business lawyer San Diego prepare the agreement which was executed by the parties. The former owner was an elderly owner of a residence, which she rented to the owner. The parties lived together for some time and the mortgage went into default. The owner purchased the property at foreclosure. Subsequently, the former owner had an opportunity to redeem the property and sell it at a profit. The owner promised the former owner that, if she agreed to allow the owner to acquire the property by a sheriff’s deed, the owner would allow the former owner to live in the residence as long as she lived. Six months after obtaining the deed, the owner ousted the former owner. The former owner brought an action for breach of the agreement and was awarded damages and a judgment charging the property with an equitable lien as security. The owner filed a motion for another and different judgment under Cal. Civ. Code §§ 663 and 663a, claiming that the damages included an award for impairment to the former owner’s health. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that the parties contemplated such damages when they made the contract. The court, however, modified the judgment because the establishment of an equitable lien was redundant where the judgment created a constructive trust.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the former owner, however, the court modified the judgment by striking the equitable lien.
Procedural Posture
Defendants, plaintiff’s former owner and employees, appealed from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County (California), which issued a preliminary injunction restraining defendants from soliciting any former customers of plaintiff business in an action by plaintiff alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and other theories.
Overview
Plaintiff business filed a complaint against defendants, plaintiff’s former owner and employees, alleging trade secret misappropriation and other theories. The claimant had a business lawyer San Diego prepare the agreement which was executed by the parties. The trial court issued the injunction prohibiting defendants from a number of activities. On appeal, the court held that injunctions could not remain in effect without posting of an adequate undertaking. An undertaking was an indispensable prerequisite to the issuance of a preliminary injunction, and the restrained party did not waive its right to that statutorily mandated protection by failing to affirmatively request it. In calculating the amount of the undertaking, considerations included (1) profits to be lost by defendants from the elimination of the majority of existing customers, and (2) attorney fees and expenses incurred in either prosecuting an appeal of the injunction or defending at trial. The court also found that the injunction was vague.
Outcome
The injunction granted in favor of plaintiff business was reversed because an undertaking was an indispensable prerequisite to the issuance of a preliminary injunction and injunctions could not remain in effect without posting of an adequate undertaking.