Wildish v. Roebuck CA4/3

Filed 6/14/21 Wildish v. Roebuck CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

BOHM WILDISH, LLP,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G058899

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2016-00862253)

TERESA ROEBUCK, as Trustee, etc., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Walter P. Schwarm, Judge. Affirmed. Motions to Dismiss and to Impose Sanctions. Denied. Bohm Wildish & Matsen, James G. Bohm and Charles H. Smith for Plaintiff and Respondent. Law Office of Brett Ferguson and Brett Ferguson for Defendant and Appellant.

* * *

INTRODUCTION A jury awarded plaintiff Bohm Wildish $146,375.60 in damages against Teresa Roebuck, in her capacity as Trustee of the Shell Beach Trust Settlement (Roebuck). In a motion for a new trial, Roebuck argued the damages were excessive and showed the jury had either misunderstood or disregarded the jury instructions. The trial court found the damages to be excessive because the complaint, the evidence presented at trial, and the jury instructions justified a damages award of no more than $100,000. The court conditionally granted the motion for a new trial that would be limited to the issue of compensatory damages unless Bohm Wildish consented to a reduction of damages to the amount of $100,000. Bohm Wildish accepted the reduction of damages to $100,000, and judgment in its favor was entered accordingly. On appeal, Roebuck contends the trial court should have unconditionally granted her motion for new trial. For the reasons we shall explain, the trial court did not err and we affirm.