|
|
|
 |
FYI - Jury's Treble-Damages Finding in Undue Influence/Theft Case Set Aside by Trial Court, Restored by Appellate Court
An elderly woman was befriended by a law student, who helped her to transfer over $90,000 (in several transactions) to the law student, allegedly because the woman wanted to help her with tuition. The woman's nephew, who had power of attorney, discovered the transactions and moved to secure conservatorship and set aside the transactions.
After the woman's death and a jury trial, the jury found that the law student had exercised undue influence and that she had committed statutory theft. Since the latter allowed treble damages the award in favor of the estate, the jury verdict amounted to over $270,000. The trial court ruled that, notwithstanding the jury's verdict, the statutory theft determination required clear and convincing evidence and that the estate's evidence did not meet that standard. The trial court also determined that mere friendship was not sufficient to establish a "confidential relationship," and so the burden of proof did not shift to the law student; however, the trial court declined to reverse the jury's determination that the law student had exercised undue influence. State Supreme Court rules that the evidence in support of the statutory theft claim did satisfy the clear and convincing standard, and so reverses the trial court and reinstates the treble damages award. Because the evidence of statutory theft actually was clear and convincing, the Supreme Court determines that it is unnecessary to decide whether that is the appropriate standard to require in all statutory theft cases; the high court also declines to address whether undue influence was properly shown, since the plaintiff would not be able to recover twice on the same claim in any event.
Howard v. MacDonald
Supreme Court of Connecticut, July 13, 2004
To view full case click here (opens a PDF document).
|
|
|
|