Cobaugh v. Reiter
Filed 7/16/13 Cobaugh v. Reiter CA6
Opinion following order vacating prior opinion
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
SIXTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT
SALLY COBAUGH,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
PETER REITER,
Defendant and
Appellant.
H038831
(Santa Cruz
County
Super. Ct.
No. CV166711)
Appellant Peter Reiter was a sole
proprietor of a residential landscaping company. In the early 2000’s, he began to do work for
Eve Kragneness, an 80-year-old widow who lived with her blind son, Jim
Krageness. A personal relationship developed
between the appellant and the Kragnesesses and the scope of the work he did for
the family increased. This work continued until Eve’s death in 2006. Often Eve
paid appellant much more than what he would have otherwise charged for his
work. The amount of the checks written
to appellant increased throughout 2004 and reached their highest point in May
2005. In total, Reiter cashed checks
totaling $544,382. At some point, a bank
official, concerned about the frequency and amount of checks to appellant,
reported the payments to the authorities.
This led to an investigation by Adult Protective Services into the
transactions and relationship between the appellant and the Kragnesesses. The investigating officer concluded that the
payments were not coerced and were being made voluntarily. After his mother’s death, Jim became the sole
administrator of his mother’s estate.
Three years after her death, Jim died unexpectedly.
Respondent Sally Cobaugh, Jim’s
cousin and the executor of his estate, filed this action for financial abuse of
an elder adult and of a dependent adult pursuant to Welfare and Institutions
Code section 15610.30. At trial, she
argued that the size and frequency of the checks, by themselves, evidenced some
sort of mental failing of both Kragenesses and that appellant must have been
aware of their feelings of dependence on him; that appellant failed to make any
inquiries as to whether the large amounts of money coming to him were
financially destructive to the Kragnesesses; and that anything other than
refusing such large checks constituted abuse of both Eve and Jim. Respondent prevailed at trial and the trial
court awarded compensatory damages to
the estate in the amount of $564,576, punitive damages in the amount of
$200,000, attorney fees in the amount of $432,777.50 and costs in the amount of
$22,315.04. This appeal ensued.
The parties have now entered into a
settlement which resolves the issues raised in the appeal. One of the conditions of settlement is that
the parties jointly seek a reversal of the trial court’s judgment. The parties have filed a joint motion for
stipulated reversal of the judgment against appellant. The reason that the parties seek a stipulated
reversal, as outlined in the motion and declaration in support of the motion
for stipulated reversal, is that they will both benefit from resolving the
matter without the need to pursue an appellate remedy, a possible subsequent
retrial and the possible debtor-collection process. A stipulated reversal, they contend, will
reduce the financial burden on both parties, and increase the amount respondent
can ultimately recover from appellant’s limited resources.
The parties’ motion and joint
declaration supports the conclusion that a stipulated reversal is appropriate
under the facts of this case and the law.
(See Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8).) For the reasons stated in the joint motion
for stipulated for reversal, including the assurance that appellant will take
responsibility for his actions by compensating the estate for any wrongdoing in
an amount agreed to by the parties, the court finds that there is no
possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely
affected by the reversal.
This court
further finds that the parties’ grounds for requesting reversal are reasonable,
allowing both parties to achieve the maximum financial and emotional benefit
from a final, mutually agreed upon resolution of all issues between the
parties, without the need for further protracted
litigation. Those grounds outweigh the erosion of public trust that may
result from the nullification of a judgment, and outweigh the risk that the
availability of a stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial
settlement.
Disposition
The
judgment is reversed pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. Each party to bear its own attorney fees and
costs on appeal. The remittitur shall
issue forthwith.
______________________________________
RUSHING, P.J.
WE CONCUR:
____________________________________
PREMO, J.
____________________________________
ELIA,
J.
