During his testimony in court, Terminix's employee-expert witness, Lonnie Anderson, admitted Terminix was negligent when they prepared the "clear" report. We were relieved that a defense witness finally told the truth and that there might be justice after all.

As soon as Mr. Anderson's testimony concluded, however, the judge dismissed the jury from the courtroom and told the defense attorneys that he would entertain motions for dismissal on the grounds of nonsuit. The motions for nonsuit were asked for and granted, on the basis of lack of evidence, to Terminix; to the seller's agent/broker, Betty Palacio; and with the exception of the charge of negligence, to “our” agent/broker, Bonnie McConnell. We have no idea why the judge denied the motion for nonsuit on the negligence charge against Bonne McConnell.

When the jury returned, the seller's agent/broker and Terminix were no longer in the courtroom. No explanation was given to the jury; and even though we had exercised our rights to a trial by jury and the jury heard Terminix's expert witness admit Terminix was negligent, the jury was not allowed to decide anything in our case against the seller's agent/broker or Terminix.

In his instructions to the jury, which were written by the defense attorneys, the judge stated that in order to prevail, we had to have proven that we had been "legally" damaged -- that we paid more for the house than it was worth.  Since no testimony or evidence had been allowed by the judge to prove that we had indeed paid more for the house than it was worth, the jury returned with a unanimous verdict in favor of the defendant. As I was leaving the courtroom after the verdict was read, two of the jurors approached me and told me they were sorry.  I told them I understood; that they had no choice with the evidence that was allowed.

In a letter from the Sutter County Tax Assessor’s Office, they subsequently appraised the property at $145,000 -- $40,000 less than what we paid for the house.

David Tennant, one of the attorneys representing Terminix and Continental Casualty, filed a "Judgment" on November 5, 1993, which stated:

After hearing the evidence, defendants The Terminix International Company, L.P. and Continental Casualty Company, made a motion for nonsuit, which after considering the evidence and arguments of counsel, the court granted.

The court did NOT consider the plaintiffs’ evidence -- the evidence was not allowed in court!

Adding insult to injury, the defendants' attorneys filed motions for attorney fees and court costs. Terminix's "Notice of Motion and Motion for Reasonable Attorney's fees; Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Declaration of David H. Tennant in Support Thereof" was filed with the court on November 18, 1993; wherein Terminix and Continental Casualty moved "for an order awarding them attorneys fees as an item of costs and fixing the amount of reasonable attorney's fees to which they are entitled as the party prevailing upon completion of trial in this matter." Mr. Tennant contradicted his previous statement that the court granted a motion for nonsuit after considering the evidence, when he stated:

Plaintiff was so ill prepared for trial that moving party was granted a nonsuit on the last day of trial.

“Plaintiff was so ill prepared for trial”??

David Tennant filed "Terminix's Memorandum of Costs (Summary)" for attorney fees and court costs amounting to $43,297.63. The estimated amount to fix the damages Terminix failed to report was over $20,000, and we had offered to settle out of court for $7,500.  Even though Terminix’s second pest inspection report proved their first report was negligent as they admitted in court, Terminix spent $43,297.63 for attorneys rather than stand by their customer-satisfaction guarantee or to even avoid litigation for only $7,500!

Our attorney filed an "Opposition to the Defendants' Motion for Attorney's Fees, Expert Witness Fees and Costs." David Tennant filed "Terminix's Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Reasonable Attorney's Fees" wherein he stated:

Plaintiffs’ Opposition papers did not include a Motion to Tax and/or Strike Costs. It has been held that a party who failed to raise his or her objections to a cost bill by filing a motion to tax costs within the time and manner authorized by Code of Civil Procedure 1033 waives the right to object to the memorandum which complied with statute and further, that the cost bill is considered conclusive.

The consequences of a stay will be adverse and defendants herein assert the appeal was filed solely to delay enforcement of the judgment, and is frivolous.

Mr. Tennant stated our filing of a stay was solely to delay enforcement of the judgment and was frivolous? None of our substantial evidence was allowed in this court.  The defense attorneys found it necessary to keep evidence and testimony from being admitted. Our expert witness, the State of California Structural Pest Control Board’s inspector, supposedly and conveniently disappeared out of state even though he was under subpoena to testify -- and then a document turned up to indicate he was in his office the same day his supervisor was subpoenaed to appear in court because he could not be found!  Terminix verified their first report was incorrect when they re-inspected the property, but would not negotiate a resolution; the Structural Pest Control Board notified Terminix they were in violation of the Structural Pest Control Act; Terminix’s own expert witness employee admitted in court they filed a negligent report. Then, an officer of the court, Mr. Tennant, submits a document to the court that states our appeal was “frivolous”?  What would he consider “valid”?

The defense knew the evidence and testimony of witnesses would prove their guilt.  Rather than make the repairs or negotiate a settlement, the defense successfully did everything possible to keep the truth from being told and evidence from being admitted.