JAY FIRESTONE v. PETER HOFFMAN
Filed 6/29/06
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| JAY FIRESTONE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PETER HOFFMAN, Defendant and Appellant. | B183184 (Super. Ct. No. BC 292795) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Joseph R. Kalin and Irving S. Feffer, Judges. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Peter Hoffman, in pro. per.; Gipson Hoffman & Pancione, Kenneth I. Sidle and Corey J. Spivey for Defendant and Appellant.
Lord, Bissell & Brook, Jeffrey S. Kravitz, Keith G. Wileman; Silver & Freedman and Jeffrey S. Kravitz for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 1997, Peter Hoffman borrowed $375,000 from Jay Firestone, and drafted and executed a promissory note for the amount of the loan. Firestone sued Hoffman on the note, alleging that the loan was never repaid. At trial, Firestone persuaded the court to exclude nearly all of the evidence that Hoffman sought to introduce in his defense, and the jury returned a verdict for Firestone. In the published portion of our opinion, we hold that Firestone's Canadian tax returns are relevant and not privileged, and that the trial court abused its discretion when it concluded to the contrary. In the unpublished portion of our opinion, we conclude that this evidentiary error and others were sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal.
BACKGROUND
I. Firestone's Claim and Hoffman's Defenses
Hoffman borrowed $375,000 from Firestone and memorialized the loan in a promissory note (the Note) that Hoffman drafted himself and executed on June 6, 1997. The Note provides that â€
