[ back ]
If Your Lawyer Steals Your Money, Can You Get Punitive Damages?
Attorney John Ruggerio practiced real estate law. He also operated a separate real estate business. Theresa DeYoung’s husband committed suicide leaving her with four children. Soon thereafter, husband’s mother left a substantial inheritance for the children. Theresa was estranged from husband’s family, so she hired Ruggerio to see to it that the children received their inheritance. Ruggerio advised Theresa to invest the money his real estate business once it was received. She declined. When $300,000 came in, Ruggerio used the money in his real estate business without telling Theresa. He lied to her about why the money hadn’t come in. Two and half years later Theresa learned what Ruggerio did. She sued to get her money back and for punitive damages. As a result, Ruggerio was disbarred. He repaid the $300,000 with interest. The punitive damage claim remained to be tried by jury.
Punitive damages can be awarded, in addition to actual damages, to punish a wrong doer. The plaintiff must prove the defendant acted with “malice,” generally described as acting with personal ill will towards a person, or acting outrageously in reckless disregard of another’s rights. The concept may include proof of a desire to harm the plaintiff. Theresa sought damages to punish Ruggerio for the emotional harm his theft caused her and because her children had not been able to go the college of their choice for lack of funds.
Theresa tried to convince the trial judge that she didn’t need to prove a personal evil motive directed at her to establish malice; that the theft of her money satisfied the concept of “malice.” But the Judge William Cohen allowed Ruggerio to argue to the jury that he had no personal animosity towards Theresa, he was just trying to help himself, so he didn’t act with legal malice and didn’t have to pay punitive damages. The jury agreed and awarded her only $5,000. She appealed.
The Supreme Court had no difficulty in agreeing with Theresa. Justice Dooley wrote that when a lawyer breaches his fiduciary duty to vulnerable clients recovering from the loss of a family member by stealing their money and then lying about it over a period of years until the clients discovered the theft, malice was established. The lawyer’s deliberate and outrageous conduct aimed at securing his own financial gain was “malice” even if he had no motive to harm another person. The court ordered a new trial to establish punitive damages. The only surprise in this case is the trial judge’s contrary ruling.
DeYoung v. Ruggerio 2009 VT 9
| Comments (1) |
On April 15, 2009 angela said:
can you please help me i have my file and i am in the same situation |
| |
[ back ]
