Bell v. Feibush
212 Cal. App. 4th 1041
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- default judgment entered against Feibush for breach of contract, fraud, and treble damages under 496(c); Bell alleged Feibush violated 496(a) by fraudulent acquisition; Feibush challenged treble damages arguing no criminal conviction under 496(a); court held conviction not prerequisite for treble damages and that 496(a) includes theft by false pretense; legislature aimed to deter theft by draining stolen-property markets through treble damages for any injured party; court discusses legislative history and statutory interpretation to support broad civil recovery under 496(c)
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a criminal conviction under 496(a) required for 496(c) treble damages | Feibush | Feibush | No; conviction not required |
| Does 496(a) cover theft by false pretense | Bell argues 496(a) covers false pretense losses | Feibush | Yes; 484 definitions include false pretense |
| Does civil recovery depend on victim status or public policy concerns | Any injured person may recover | Policy concerns about remedies | Statutory interpretation governs despite policy concerns |
| Can a party recover treble damages for both breach-of-contract and fraud alongside 496(c) treble damages | Bell seeks treble damages on 496(a) while recovering contract/fraud damages | No double recovery | No double-recovery issue resolved by treble-damage framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Heritage Cablevision of Cal., Inc. v. Pusateri, 38 Cal.App.4th 517 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd 1995) (civil liability not prerequisite by conviction for violation)
- People v. Gomez, 43 Cal.4th 249 (Cal. 2008) (theft by false pretense included in section 484(a))
- People v. Allen, 21 Cal.4th 846 (Cal. 1999) (limits on convicting for both theft and receiving stolen property)
- Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 171 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2009) (leg history: 496(c) expanded to any injured person to deter theft)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 2011) (illustrates statutory interpretation approach (context, purpose))