Prime Vest Realty v. Taromi
Defendant Siamak Taromi was a participant in a failed real estate deal. As part of the dissolution of that deal, Taromi and Jeff Kaiser gave a promissory note to plaintiff Prime Vest Realty, Inc. (Prime Vest). Taromi later assumed responsibility for the note, agreeing to indemnify Kaiser against any claims brought in connection with it. When Prime Vest filed this action against Taromi and Kaiser to collect on the promissory note, both responded with cross-complaints alleging fraud and seeking rescission of the note. Prior to trial, Kaiser settled with Prime Vest, making a $100,000 payment on the note. The trial court then found Taromi liable to Prime Vest and entered judgment against Taromi for the entire principal amount of the promissory note, along with other damages and attorney fees and costs. Taromi argues that the trial court was required to hold a hearing under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 to determine the good faith of the settlement, that the trial court erred in failing to offset the settlement payment against his liability on the note, and that the trial court should have allocated the attorney fees award. Court agree that Taromi was entitled to an offset, but we otherwise affirm the judgment.
Comments on Prime Vest Realty v. Taromi