Procedural Posture

Plaintiff buyers sought review of a judgment from the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three (California), which affirmed the trial court’s award of zero damages to the buyers on a breach of contract claim in a construction defect caseaffirmed the trial court’s award of feescosts to defendant sellers as the prevailing parties under Code CivProc., § 1032, subd(a)(4).

California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Incprovides counsel for negligent hiring California

Table of Contents

Overview

The buyers received settlements from other parties before their claim against the sellers went to trialThe trial court found in the buyers’ favorBecause the prior settlements exceeded the damages awarded, the trial court determined that the sellers should receive credit for the settlementsthat the buyers should receive nothing by the actionThe trial court found the sellers to be the prevailing parties because they paid nothing under the judgmentThe court held that the buyers did not receive a net monetary recovery under § 1032, subd(a)(4), because they received nothingUnder Code CivProc., § 877, subd(a), settlements made prior to trial reduced the claims against the remaining codefendantsThus, any reduction for prior settlements was made before the entry of judgmentAccordingly, when prior settlements exceeded the award received at trial, the net recovery was zeroThe court disapproved Wakefield vBohlin (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 963, to the extent inconsistentBecause the sellers achieved their goal of proving damages in an amount less than the settlement proceeds, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding them to be the prevailing parties.