Berges v. Maniscalco CA2/5
Filed 5/31/22 Berges v. Maniscalco CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
TAMARA BERGES, B310521
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 19SMCP00388)
JAMES MANISCALCO et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark A. Young, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Kirk M. Hallam and Kirk M. Hallam for Plaintiff and Appellant. Towle Denison & Maniscalco and James P. Maniscalco for Defendants and Respondents.
Tamara Berges (Berges) appeals from a judgment confirming an arbitrator’s award of attorney fees and costs to James and Susan Maniscalco (the Maniscalcos). They were prevailing parties in an arbitration resolving a dispute over the sale of a condominium. We consider (1) whether Berges’s claim that the arbitrator acted beyond his authority was ever appropriately raised below, and (2) whether the trial court erred when it found the arbitrator properly served the award on the parties’ attorneys instead of on the parties themselves.
I. BACKGROUND In 2017, the Maniscalcos sold their Santa Monica condominium to Berges. The purchase and sale agreement provided that any dispute between the parties would be settled by binding arbitration. The agreement also provided that the prevailing party in any such arbitration would be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs. A year after the sale, Berges, represented by counsel, made a demand for arbitration. She claimed the Maniscalcos failed to disclose a material defect in the condominium, specifically, a leaky bathtub.1 She sought $20,000 in repair costs and $25,000 in legal fees and costs and elected to have the arbitration governed by the Code of Civil Procedure.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)