ADVERTISEMENT
Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> California Appellate Report
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Federal Judiciary
: California Appellate ReportGravillis v. Coldwell Banker (Cal. Ct. App. - Feb. 26, 2010)
By Shaun Martin
ADVERTISEMENTS
Kenny Gravillis bought a home in L.A. for $500,000 using Coldwell Banker as his broker. After buying the house, he concluded that Coldwell Banker had done a terrible job, and had failed to disclose some significant known defects in the house, so he sued 'em.
But the standard brokerage agreement had an arbitration clause. So Coldwell Banker filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Gravillis opposed. At the hearing, the trial court denied the motion to arbitrate, and asked Gravillis to prepare an order. Which it did -- to which Coldwell Banker responded by "objecting" to the proposed order with a reiteration of its arguments at the hearing. Inexplicably, this tactic worked, and rather than signing the proposed order, the trial court compelled arbitration.
At which point Gravillis filed a motion for reconsideration. Which also worked. At which point the trial court entered an order denying arbitration.
So Coldwell Banker filed an appeal. And the Court of Appeal reversed, and compelled the matter to be arbitrated.
All of this, as you might imagine, took years and years: We're talking way back in 2004 and 2005. So lots of transaction costs and attorney's fees.
So eventually, in 2008, Coldwell Banker gets its requested arbitration hearing. At which the arbitator awards plaintiff almost $400,000 in damages.
Coldwell Banker, not surprisingly, files a motion to vacate, which the trial court denies. Coldwell Banker then again appeals, claiming that the arbitrator failed to follow California law.
But you asked for it, you got it. The Court of Appeal affirms.
Lesson of the Day: Be careful what you wish for.
Full post as published by California Appellate Report on March 10, 2010 (boomark / email).
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

Coldwell Banker Sues Former Employees
Coldwell Banker CEO: "Move-up buyers absent"
Forbes Divorce a Ploy to Avoid Restitution
Company Failed to Warn Homeowners about Lead Paint Problems








