Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: real estate disclosure

Without knowing all the facts, claims and defenses intimately, I can't really give you a reliable answer, and even then I gotta say that juries are much less predictible than you might suppose.

Emotional distress claims are often made but I'd say one of the more-rarely awarded upon. Most jurors have suffered emotional distress in a variety of life situations and didn't receive or expect monetary compensation, especially when the distress is just part of a business deal that went sour and not a situation where someone was deliberately and sadistically pushing needles in a voodoo doll.

On the other hand, claimants must occasionally win damages for "negligent infliction of emotional distress" because lawyers continue to insert IIED and NIED causes of action in lawsuits (and are taught that they should in law school). So, your lawyer is exaggerating when he or she says "never;" I'd translate this as "I sure wouldn't count on getting anything for emotional distress in evaluating a settlement offer."

I must admit that I'm a bit puzzled by your attorney's conclusion that the seller, rather than the agent and broker, is more likely to be hit with the punitive damages, if any. This must be a fact-specific conclusion. I think on the whole agents and brokers are a little more exposed to punitive damages because of their supposed greater sophistication and training and awareness of what must be investigated and disclosed; also the public's greater interest in disciplining people in frequent contact with the public, etc. Nevertheless your attorney may be right under the circumstances of this case, perhaps because the seller was the one with opportunity to discover and know about this last-minute development.

I'd give the lawyer the benefit of the doubt here, and not just because I am one; the evaluation you've been given seems plausible on the punitive damages question and pretty sound if a bit overstated on the emotional distress issue.