Gallagher v. Heritage
Decision Date | 30 June 1983 |
Citation | 144 Cal.App.3d 546,192 Cal.Rptr. 614 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Kellie Jean GALLAGHER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Thomas Carl HERITAGE, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 30143. |
Defendant, Thomas Heritage (Heritage), appeals from a post judgment order awarding costs to plaintiff, Kellie Gallagher (Gallagher).
We are asked to decide whether defendant's statutory offer to compromise, made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998, is revoked by a subsequent oral offer thus removing statutorily imposed cost burdens and benefits. For reasons set out below, we hold it is not.
Gallagher sued Heritage for personal injuries and property damage. Following a court ordered arbitration hearing (Cal.Rules of Court, rule 1600) Gallagher was awarded $7,500, however Heritage requested a trial de novo (Cal.Rules of Court, rule 1616). On January 5, 1982, Heritage served Gallagher's attorney with an offer to compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998 in the sum of $6,001. It was not accepted. Shortly before trial, on May 19, an oral offer of $7,500 was made. It too was refused. The jury awarded Gallagher $4,000 in damages, and a memorandum of costs and disbursements was filed. Heritage also filed a memorandum of costs and a motion to tax plaintiff's costs. The court awarded Gallagher certain costs requested including those incurred after the section 998 offer was rejected, and granted her motion to tax defendant's costs in its entirety.
Costs in the superior court are awarded following judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action for recovery of money or damages. (Code Civ.Proc., § 1032, subd. (a).) However, if plaintiff's recovery is within the jurisdictional limits of a lower court the award of costs is discretionary. (Code Civ.Proc., § 1032, subd. (d).)
To encourage pretrial disposition of litigation the Legislature enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 997 1 and its successor. Code of Civil Procedure section 998. (Lum v. Superior Court (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 952, 190 Cal.Rptr. 599; Wear v. Calderon (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 818, 175 Cal.Rptr. 566; Pineda v. Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc. (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 53, 169 Cal.Rptr. 66; Brown v. Nolan (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 445, 159 Cal.Rptr. 469; Distefano v. Hall (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 380, 69 Cal.Rptr. 691.) These sections authorize the withholding or augmenting of otherwise allowable costs.
Section 998 provides in pertinent part:
Heritage argues the award of post offer costs to Gallagher clearly defeats the intent and purpose of the statute, i.e., to punish a plaintiff who fails to obtain a trial result more favorable than the offer made by defendant. We agree.
Relying on a statement in Distefano, Gallagher contends contract principles apply, and a subsequent offer revokes a prior one: (Distefano v. Hall, supra, 263 Cal.App.2d at p. 385, 69 Cal.Rptr. 691.)
However, we find that language to be limited to the peculiar facts before that court. Distefano dealt with two statutory offers. 2 The first (for $20,000), made before trial, which verdict was reversed on appeal (Distefano v. Hall (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 657, 32 Cal.Rptr. 770), and the second (for $10,000), before retrial. The verdict on retrial was $12,000. The defendants contended the plaintiff's rejection of the first offer insulated them from any costs thereafter incurred by the plaintiff unless the verdict exceeded $20,000. The trial court disagreed awarding the plaintiff appropriate costs. In affirming, the court in Distefano gave full application to the legislative intent of Code of Civil Procedure section 997. (Distefano v. Hall, supra, 263 Cal.App.2d at p. 385, 69 Cal.Rptr. 691.)
We find a different rule compelled by the facts before us. Once a statutory offer is made and the time for acceptance expired, the offeror is cloaked with the protections provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 998. A subsequent oral offer will not diminish already...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
T. M. Cobb Co. v. Superior Court
... ... Relying [36 Cal.3d 279] on the recent Court of Appeal decision in Gallagher v. Heritage (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 546, 192 Cal.Rptr. 614, petitioner argues that general contract law principles simply do not apply to the process ... ...
-
Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor Am.
... ... judgment' is penalized by a loss of prevailing party ... costs and an award of costs in the defendant's ... favor." ( Heritage Engineering Construction, Inc. v ... City of Industry (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1439.) ... "The goal has been to apply [section 998] ... prior unaccepted section 998 offer inoperable when the ... defendant made a subsequent oral nonstatutory offer ... ( Gallagher v. Heritage (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 546, ... 547-548), that case was overruled by our Supreme Court in ... T.M. Cobb Co. , supra , 36 ... ...
-
Wilson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., WAL-MART
... ... The authorities upon which Wilson relies are inapposite. In Gallagher v. Heritage (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 546, 192 Cal.Rptr. 614, the court held that "[o]nce a statutory offer is made and the time for acceptance [has] ... ...
-
Evers v. Cornelson
...of expert witnesses " 'reasonably necessary in either, or both, the preparation or trial of the case....' " (Gallagher v. Heritage (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 546, 549, 192 Cal.Rptr. 614, overruled on other grounds in T.M. Cobb Co. v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 273, 280, 204 Cal.Rptr. 143, 6......