Plotnik v. Meihaus

California Court of Appeal · Contracts

Contractsbreach of contractemotional distress damagesattorney feesmutual restraint clausesettlement agreementmaterial breachemotional distress

Facts

The parties were neighboring homeowners who resolved an earlier fence dispute through a 2007 written settlement agreement containing a mutual restraint clause requiring them not to harass, vex, or annoy one another, and an attorney fee clause for actions to remedy or obtain relief from a breach. After the settlement, plaintiffs presented evidence that Meihaus repeatedly threw yard debris over the fence, made vulgar gestures at the family, and intentionally stared at Joyce Plotnik for an extended period at the community pool. In April 2009, evidence supported a finding that Meihaus intentionally struck plaintiffs' dog Romeo with a bat, causing veterinary expenses and emotional distress. Later that day, Meihaus's sons confronted David Plotnik in a threatening and abusive manner while he photographed the fence.

Issue

Whether the evidence supported liability and damages for breach of the settlement agreement's mutual restraint clause, including emotional distress damages, despite a finding that Joyce Plotnik also breached the agreement. Whether plaintiffs could recover emotional distress damages for injury to their dog and under multiple overlapping tort theories without obtaining duplicative recovery.

Rule

For breach of contract, emotional distress damages are generally unavailable, but they may be recovered when the breach is of a kind for which serious emotional disturbance is a particularly likely result, including where the contract's express object is the mental and emotional well-being of a contracting party. A material breach by one party excuses the other party's further performance. Under the primary right rule, a plaintiff may not recover duplicative damages for the same injury under multiple legal theories.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In San Diego, neighbors Elena Ruiz and Martin Sloane settled a boundary dispute with a written agreement providing that neither would "harass, vex, or annoy" the other. Over the next year, Martin repeatedly tossed hedge trimmings into Elena's yard and, on numerous occasions, made obscene hand gestures at her family, causing Elena severe anxiety and sleeplessness.

If Elena sues Martin for breach of the settlement agreement, is she most likely entitled to recover emotional distress damages?

Explanation. Emotional distress damages are generally unavailable for breach of contract, but the majority recognized an exception where the breach is of a kind for which serious emotional disturbance is a particularly likely result, including when the contract's express object is the parties' mental and emotional well-being. A mutual restraint clause between adjoining neighbors is the kind of promise designed to prevent emotionally harmful conduct, so repeated harassment can support emotional distress damages in contract. (Derived from Plotnik v. Meihaus (n.d.).)